Wedderburn (continued)
Yesterday, I began a review of Wedderburn’s Beyond Resurrection. I wrote mostly of what he got right. Today, I take issue with much of the remainder of the book.
Wedderburn stumbles, unnecessarily it seems, when he arrives at Paul’s discussion of the resurrection. He, incorrectly, asserts that Paul disagrees with Luke’s description of the resurrection body as being composed of flesh and bones. He supposes that Paul argues for a non-physical resurrection body based on his contrast of the resurrection body with our present body. This conclusion is not justified based on Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15. There is no difficulty in understanding Paul’s description of the resurrection body in a physical way; in fact, this is to be preferred in light of Paul’s overall teaching. Wedderburn, suddenly opts for a “spiritualization†of the resurrection.
He then, incorrectly concludes that the outcome of this historical investigation is a disquieting one. Rather than reason to the best explanation of the events, he capitulates to a “historical agnosticism†which seems to require absolute certainty. Although there are other explanations for the events surrounding the resurrection they are fraught with immense difficulties. The best explanation is the actual physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather than accept this conclusion, Wedderburn incredulously declares a …
… dead end for our understanding of the Christian faith and of God, with a coming to terms with the loss of what had previously been thought to be the firm basis for so many traditional assertions about God, Jesus and the world.
After firmly establishing that the resurrection is the foundation and cornerstone of Christian faith and then concluding that we cannot know if the resurrection actually occurred or not, Wedderburn rapidly degenerates into an attempt to salvage some positive outcome from this depressing conclusion. He frankly admits to not only going well beyond what Biblical writers say regarding the subject of the resurrection, but also to contradicting the New Testament scriptures. He states:
Having let go of this datum may prove to be a liberating experience for theology… one is free to formulate a view of God that is based on everyday religious experience instead of taking as its starting-point that which is quite unique.
Wedderburn’s God becomes whatever we wish it to be. A Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu conception is equally valid. Wedderburn finds some misplaced consolation in a God who is no longer omnipotent, but a mysterious “suffering†God who is struggling right along with the rest of us.
Wedderburn seems to look at the evidence, ignore the evidence, throw up his hands into a “we can never be sure†posture, and proceed to make up his own story that brings him comfort. We have no reason to accept nor find any comfort in anything he says about what God is since he has no basis from which to make any claims except that this is how God seems to him. He does not present a convincing argument to deny the historicity of the resurrection. He also does not present a convincing argument that anything can be salvaged from Christianity if the resurrection did not occur. Wedderburn starts out asserting that the resurrection is essential for Christianity, the he denies the resurrection, but then he attempts to salvage Christianity in some form of his own making. But, he fails. As Paul stated:
If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is empty, and your faith is empty…If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15: 14, 17).
That is why the early Christians died for their testimony of Christ’s resurrection.