We recently hosted Gary Habermas.
From Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, he spoke at our College on the evidence for the resurrection. Gary has been on a national tour of the UK and his approach to apologetics can be very helpful in conversation with friends. Dubbed the ‘minimal facts’ approach, he focusses on the evidences that almost everyone can agree upon in order to make his case for the resurrection.
This is helpful because we are often distracted by red herrings. Did Balaam really have a talking donkey? How old is the earth? Such questions are important, but not crucial.
Remarkable consensus
Habermas points out that even among sceptical NT scholars there is a remarkable amount of consensus. The consensus remains that the core of the New Testament provides a historical basis for believing that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under the Romans, was buried, appeared to his disciples and that the tomb was found to be empty.
These are the minimal facts found not from later embellished accounts or second-generation sermons and church councils. These are the facts to be found in the earliest words of the NT. Of course, some scholars date the Gospels to many years after the death of Christ, but Habermas points out that even the sceptics hold certain passages to be very early and authentic. One such passage is 1 Corinthians 15.1-8. What is intriguing about this passage is that not only was it written down early, but it reflects an oral creed which, according to very sceptical critic Michael Goulder, goes back to ‘a couple of years after the crucifixion’. Normal historical evidence is available to evaluate the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. We are not reliant on dreams and visions written down centuries later.
Local detective’s story
I was interested in how this evidential approach to apologetics appealed to someone familiar with criminal investigations. We have a local detective in our church who works for the Hampshire Constabulary and I asked him about his own conversion story in the light of the evidence.
Rich told me that he came to faith soon after joining the police. Having attended a church more out of interest in a girl than in faith he found himself joining a course introducing Christianity, ‘All the things I had asked as a teenager were answered factually and without any religious overcomplication. By the end of our time together I had been convinced that Jesus was a factual person, not a religious myth. But more than that I was convinced that the Bible was an accurate record of his life. If that was true then it followed that he was either mad, bad or genuine. On my assessment of the evidence I couldn’t find any clue to mental illness or deception. I therefore knew enough to put my trust in Jesus.’
Rich’s experience of coming to faith certainly included an investigation of the evidence. I asked him how this compared to a forensic investigation. ‘For me it was all about questioning. In my conversion I asked questions of Chris Blake, who led the course, as an equivalent expert witness. I asked questions of a Christian friend, a witness of fact, and I asked questions of the Bible, a piece of documentary evidence, which if true held witness testimony from hundreds of eye witnesses.’
Why doesn’t everyone see it?
Given this weight of evidence, why isn’t everyone compelled? Rich answered: ‘no evidence is ever perfect. In every case there is an element of faith. Juries put their trust (or not) in those people who present evidence to them. Coming to Christ is the same. It does-n't matter how much evidence there is, we all must come to a point where we either decide to trust Jesus or not: we still need to put faith in him.’
Articulate witnesses
Presenting the case for Christ can mean outlining to our friends the minimal facts that even the sceptics concede. There is enough evidence there to make a decision for Christ. Where can we go for help today? My detective friend was impressed by one particular apologetic book: ‘I remember reading the Lee Strobel book The Case for Christ and being impressed by the witnesses he spoke to. These weren’t religiously blind people, but intelligent, articulate witnesses.’
Perhaps we can all do more to demonstrate that, while our faith is emotionally inspiring, it is also rationally engaging. The verdict of our detective? ‘I truly believe that if people were prepared to spend time investigating the account of the resurrection they would find it to be compelling.’
