Let me familiarize you with some of the sound bites in the Mike Licona situation that have people upset:
“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes.”
“We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death.”
(Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 185-186).
Sound bites are very dangerous as they can be used to misrepresent and, sometimes, destroy someone else’s standing within a particular community. In this case, Mike Licona’s standing is in jeopardy with many people in conservative Christian theology who like what he has done, but don’t know how to process the statements above. Sound bites? You know what I am talking about. Take someone’s words out of context and we lose all ability to communicate. People have done this to you and you say in response, “You don’t understand the context in which I said that.” “You have to know some more background before you can make a judgement.” I am going to try to give you some of what I suppose to be the theological and methodological context in which Mike’s sound bites occurred.
Pop quiz (circle one): As Christians we are to . . .
a) follow the evidence no matter where it leads
b) follow the Bible no matter where it leads
c) follow rationality no matter where it leads
d) follow our faith no matter where it leads
What did you circle? Tuck your answer away; we will revisit this in a bit.
Not long ago, I started a Christian theology class this way: “Carl Sagan could be right. It could be that we are all alone in this universe. It could be the silence that we get from God is natural to the way things really are. It could be that the reason Jesus has yet to return is because he is not coming. It could be that the teachings of the Bible are a crutch we use to support our otherwise hopeless life. But it could be that we are right, and Christianity holds the meta-narrative to all existence. We have to consider and examine all possibilities if we are to have integrity, even those possibilities that make us the most uncomfortable.”
Many of you do not like the language I just used. Sound bites could be pulled from that introduction and placed on billboards and they would hurt my influence among other Christians. Many would say, “It could be? How could you, as a Christian, say that our faith could be true? You are making our beliefs contingent on the reasoning of man. How long will you waver between two opinions? It either is or it isn’t; there is no could be.” Anyone reading or hearing these sound bites would misunderstand my method, my approach, and my audience. Just because I say something could be does not mean I believe that it is likely, much less probable.
The language I used may not preach. But it will teach.
There is a difference in teaching and preaching. Preaching seeks to encourage people with the truth. Teaching seeks to instruct people in the truth. Preaching exhorts. Teaching educates. Preaching is more deductive. Teaching is more inductive. Preaching is decisive. Teaching is inquisitive. Preaching builds a creedal faith. Teaching builds a credible faith. Both are needed. Both are important. Both are biblical. The method used depends on the speaker’s audience and purpose.
Let me switch gears for a moment and head one more (last?) time to the Mike Licona issue.
Rob Bowman, in the wonderfully helpful work he co-authored with Ken Boa entitled Faith Has Its Reasons (highly suggested), tells us about the different methods Christian apologists (those who defend the faith) will use to defend the faith. There are four:
1. Presuppositional: presuppose the truthfulness and authority of the Scripture as a properly basic belief.
2. Classical: rationally present a case for the Christian faith.
3. Fideist: faith transcends evidence and reason; just believe.
4. Evidential: evidentially build a case for the faith.
While these descriptions may be somewhat oversimplified, they nevertheless capture the essence of the four systems. It is important to note that the first three are top-down approaches, which are more deductive. The last is more bottom up; it is inductive.
Without getting too much into the right or wrong and strengths or weaknesses of these four, let me say this: the first three will preach! The last won’t preach too well, but it will teach.
When writing a book about the historicity of the resurrection, each one of these approaches is going to produce a different type of book that is tailored for different audiences. The presuppositional, fideist, and to some degree the classical, will produce language of assurance and conviction to a larger degree than the evidential approach. This book will be more directed toward those who already generally believe in the truths of the Bible. The evidentialist will appeal more to those who are seekers and skeptics.
Question: Why do we believe the resurrection?
Presupposition: Because the Bible, God’s word and thus our ultimate authority, says it happened; therefore, we believe it.
Classical: Because we can deduce through rational inquiry that the Bible is God’s word. The Bible says it happened, therefore, we believe it. (Though, to be fair, most classical apologists use evidence as well).
Fideist: Because our faith in the resurrection transcends all else; no matter what the evidence and reason say, we believe it.
Evidentialist: Because the resurrection is the most probable explanation for all the historical data; therefore, we believe it.
Notice that the evidentialist approach is the most contingent in its rhetoric. It says that the resurrection is the “most probable.” That is language of contingency. Why does it use such language? Because the proposed truth is dependent on the strength of the evidences. Therefore, it is going to be open to more sound bite critique. People can take individual arguments out of context and misunderstand what is going on by failing to look at the big picture. “Probable?” they will say. “You mean to tell me that the resurrection is only probable in your thinking? No thanks. I want the blessed absolute assurance, not this method that caves to human understanding.”
Mike Licona’s work on the historicity of the resurrection utilizes an evidendential approach to defending the faith. Agree or not, it is the same bottom-up methodology used by many Christian scholars both today and throughout the history of the church. It is the same method Thomas used when he doubted the resurrection. “Show me the evidence!” was Thomas’ cry. It is the same methodology Luke used in producing his books (Luke and Acts; Luke 1:1).
Why does Mike Licona use this method? Because of the audience Licona is trying to reach. Agree or not, the evidentialist approach has a broader appeal than the other three approaches, due to the fact that this is the world people function in every day – the world of evidences and decisions based on probability. We make decisions to purchase a new car, to marry a certain person, or to take a job, not because we have absolute and infallible presupposed or rationalized assurance that these decisions are correct, but because we base our decisions on which outcome is most probable, according to the evidence. Due to the history of the car maker, the reviews we have read, and our multiple test drives, we make a decision to invest $20,000 into a car and drive it down the highway at 60+ mph. Could we have chosen poorly? Yes. Does that mean we did? No. Why? Because the evidentialist is working under this assumption: the possibility of error does not equal the probability of error.
Licona makes some statements in his work The Resurrection of Jesus that are being used right now as sound bites of indictment. He says things such as, “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes.” Once we hear that, we fall apart. What does this mean? Is he conceding that the Bible could be wrong? I think there are two things happening here: 1) He is merely suggesting another interpretive option; and 2) he is speaking with the language of an evidentialist in order to build his case. However, neither of these mean that the contingencies of the language and rhetoric used suggest he is actually denying the truthfulness of the event (rightly interpreted) or the probability of its legendary status.
When you approach things evidentially, though your theology may say otherwise, though you may be emotionally tied to certain conclusions, your methodology cannot be prejudiced in such a way. In other words, you cannot assume a conclusion, as an evidentialist, then interpret the data only in a way that supports your presupposition. You must follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Concerning the historicity of the resurrection, one cannot write a book like Mike Licona has written and use his presupposed inerrant theology to dictate his method or conclusions. Ironically, from the standpoint of the evidentialist, this would dishonor God more than anything, as it is not Truth you are really in search of, but truth as you have presupposed it.
As an evidentialist, Mike must use the language of contingency to make his points stronger. If there is stronger evidence for one historical event than for another, then he must present it as such. If one event, from this bottom-up approach, has less historic credibility than another, then his conclusions will follow suit. When we are trying to build our case for Christianity inductively, from the ground up, there are going to be some things that are more historically credible than others. This does not mean we are denying the things that are less credible from a historic standpoint, it just means that they don’t form the bedrock of our case and will be spoken of more contingently. Mike says, “We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13” (emphasis mine). This is just the language of the evidentialist. It is the language that he has to use to have intellectual honesty, integrity, and (the word everyone hates) credibility when inductively building his case.
I remember hearing this rhetoric for the first time from Darrel Bock at seminary. It killed me for a few days. “How could he say this or that probably happened? How could he say such-and-such unbeliever may be right?” It was not until I took into account the method he was using and the audience he was trying to reach that I understood. I realized he was using evidentialist rhetoric that did not necessarily express his own personal theological stands. I realized he was giving more honor to God by speaking contingently – according to the evidence – rather than according to his presuppositions.
When you read Mike Licona’s statements in his book, please take into account who he is writing to and the method he necessarily must take in order to honor God and reach people’s minds with the truth of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
Pop quiz: As Christians we are to . . .
a) follow the evidence no matter where it leads (evidentialist)
b) follow the Bible no matter where it leads (presuppositionalist)
c) follow rationality no matter where it leads (classicalist)
d) follow our faith no matter where it leads (fideist)
All have their place. But not all have their place in the type of work Mike Licona produced. Mike Licona is teaching us about the resurrection of Jesus so that our preaching can have more true conviction.
Having said all this, I am not completely certain this would accurately describe how Mike sees this issue. Though I have written on this quite a bit in the last week, I am certainly not the official Licona spokesperson. Either way, this should be some good advice to seminaries and religious education organizations: if you don’t want your employees to phrase their work with such contengencies, hire only presuppositionalists, fideists, and classical apologists. Stay away from evidentialists!
38 replies to "Mike Licona, Sound Bite Misunderstandings, and Apologetic Methodology"
Michael,
I have learned much from your series on this issue. I greatly appreciate your thoughtfulness and thoroughness.
Mike is in my prayers.
I wish to add that it is unfortunate that I had to learn at Mikes expense.
Sadly there’s only one gearbox for Fundamentalism!
Michael. It could help to know that this book is actually Mike’s dissertation that he wrote, though redone to an extent. Obviously, he had to begin from a great position of skepticism in reaching his audience and could not say “The resurrection is true because the Bible says so.”
I wonder how many people quoting that line have actually read his book.
Nick, I do think that this is very helpful for people to know.
I am curious. Since you are an insider, do you think that a misunderstanding in the rhetoric that has to be used is causing some of the problem? I know that Geisler should know better than this (after all, we have seen this approach for years, most notably from J Warwick Montgomery), so I have no excuse for him. But among more of the laity and board members involved, don’t you see this contributing to some of the problems?
@Nick: Yes, we call it the work of a scholar, and scholarship!
@Michael. Yes. There’s a lot of rhetoric. People don’t realize that Mike is all for Inerrancy and in fact, he sees what he’s doing as protecting Inerrancy. Inerrancy has often taken a fully literal approach, but it just doesn’t work that way because the Bible isn’t written that way. 1st century writers did not write like 21st century writers did.
As for miracles in fact, I’d say Mike is more willing to believe in miracles than I am! He’s shared several stories with me of things that I’m just thinking “Well I’m not sure I really believe that yet.” He’s much more open than I am.
Thus, anyone who says he is denying Inerrancy, based on my interactions with him, I just know they don’t know what they’re talking about. He also doesn’t have a liberal bone in his body when it comes to the text nor does he want to cast doubt on Scripture.
A lot of people need to stop making him say things he isn’t and actually read his book.
Thanks Nick. I have a liberal bone that keeps me honest. I think it is my patella.
CMP: Nice, sometimes I get called a liberal by the conservatives, and a conservative by the liberals! I am just an eclectic Irish Anglican, or Anglo-Irish, now in the USA for the time being.
Good to have u here!!
I consider it providence, thanks Michael! Btw, please pray for my wife (younger than I am), she is the major reason we are here. She has chronic COPD.
Consider it done.
Michael, this is one of the most thought-provoking articles that you have posted. That is the reason that I read your blog on a daily basis. You not only “inform” but you make us “think.” Keep up the great work!
I agree with Steve – this is not the typical dribble that we get from some. It’s well above the 8th grade level and much appreciated. Thinking more deeply can be a chore for some of us but, you make it go down smoothly. Very refreshing.
Great post, CMP. I particularly like your analysis of the different audiences. Each approach is relevant for a different audience. I tend to like the evidentialist approach. I have an analytical mindset. I get very little out of devotional works to the point where I pretty much avoid them now.
Taking people out of context can be dangerous. I remember several years ago listening to a talk where single sentences were taken out of another man’s work and used to show that he was saying something heretical. I found the original work, and discovered that the conclusion drawn was not the original point to the work at all. It was being twisted. I immediately lost respect for the original speaker and swore never to draw conclusions from a single sentence again.
Michael, ok, I understand the argument you are making and I think it is reasonable, but let me ask this. Did Licona, either in the book or in the consequent discussion give an unqualified statement that he does accept the truthfulness of the word?
You mention that Sagan might be right, but you have made many statements that clearly prove that you believe him to be wrong. Licona has said that the Good Friday resurrections might have been legend and fireworks – has he made any other statement to the effect that he does believe they really happened?
@Steve. Mike does believe that they are really apocalyptic and that is based on the evidence that he has. Have you read his book and seen what his argument is?
As I have said myself many times about Licona’s book, Christians must read this book in its entirety before they really can make lasting comment. And also remember, this book is a piece of scholarship and written at that academic level. I myself, month’s back, was at first thinking that Matt. 27:52-53 was historical, on the face of it this might appear, but when you get down into the depth of the verses you can see that there is a real problem with the timing, and just the spiritual substance, and just how that subtance is really related in the text. And, it is also a portion that is only seen in Matthew, so for me anyway, the Jewishness of the text must also be related, and from this, these texts really do appear to be a Jewish midrash and apocalyptic.
So lets stand back and take some deep breaths shall we? Damn, I hope so! 😉
Also, to clarify, Mike is at a 50/50 interpretation now with whether the text is historical or apocalyptic, however, he does not doubt the truthfulness of Scripture. The statement about that is assuming that if it is true, it must be fully literal. That has not been demonstrated.
@ SteveT (comment #16)
In Mike Licona’s address to the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society in San Francisco (http://risenjesus.com/articles), he presented evidence both for and against the literal interpretation of Matthew’s resurrections of the saints. He states he is not dogmatic either way, but explains why the evidence inclines him to come down more in favour of the non-literal understanding.
However, I don’t think that has any relevance to his belief in the inerrancy of the bible (“the truthfulness of the word” as you put it). I think Mike Licona fully believes that Matthew’s reference to the saints coming out of their tombs is divinely-inspired scripture and is true whether or not it really happened. Something can be true without being a literal historical event.
For example, if I say I am gobsmacked when England win a cricket match, I am being completely true and accurate in describing my astonishment. But no one who knows the idioms of the English language would think I meant someone had literally punched me in the mouth!
Similarly, if I were to say “But everyone likes apple pie and ice cream!”, most people would understand it idiomatically. If the Bible says that all the kings of the earth came to hear Solomon’s wisdom, then sure enough, some skeptic somewhere would spend 3 years trying to prove that King Xenoshan from Mongolia could not possibly have made the journey, whereas such a phrase simply means that Solomon was famous for his wisdom and that a considerable number of rulers (not all) admired his wisdom and came to him to partake of it. Such a statement can be fully inspired by God and can be completely true when understood according to the conventions of ordinary human speech.
When Matthew mentioned the resurrection of the saints, I think Mike Licona would entertain the possibility that Matthew (under the inspiration of God) was weaving a non-historical detail into the historical account of Jesus’ death in order to underline the fact that this man being crucified was no ordinary person and that his death had cosmic repercussions, including the conquest of death and the hope of physical resurrection for mortal man.
If you believe God inspired the bible to be written in everyday human language following the conventions of various literary genres (instead of being written the way a lawyer would draft a watertight contract using a precise code of legal terminology to ensure that each phrase is unambiguous), then it follows that you can be an inerrantist and still not believe Matthew’s resurrection of the saints was necessarily a literal event.
CMP –
Thanks for beautifully clarifying the approach Licona most probably has taken in his book!
CMP
I’ve followed your discussion on the Licona controversy and, in being in agreement with Steve, it’s been thought-provoking (as usual when it comes to Credo House ministry). Your 1st article compelled me to purchase “The Resurrection of Jesus” and enthusiastically reading it. I respect the scholarship of both Geisler and Mohler, but I am very much disappointed on how they’re treating Licona…especially when Geisler, e.g., still wants to address him as “Your brother in Christ”.
Btw, the Texts of Matt. 27: 52-53 do point to the theology of the NT Letters in the resurrection of Christ, (1 Peter 3:18-22), and here there is certainly the historical, but also more…the great spiritual reality of the Risen & Ascended Christ! It seems to me anyway that this is the great and lasting measure of the Apocalyptic!
“CMP –
Thanks for beautifully clarifying the approach Licona most probably has taken in his book!”
Ditto!
CMP,
Thanks for continuing to address this issue in a reasonable way. Sadly, much of what passes for apologetic method these days is akin to the “sound bite” apologetics you described. It does not require much thought or effort to take someone’s statements out of context, isolate them, reinterpret them (or extend them absurdly), and then attack the reinterpretation.
One question: You (and some of your readers) obviously know Mike Licona well. But, his critics must also know him. I do not. How much does knowing someone weigh in with the ability to understand them correctly? Actually, two questions: Are there things at play behind the scenes that contribute to clamor of this situation?
As I have said on other posts, I do not agree with half of Licona’s 50/50 position but it did not take a lot of reading to see that he was not denying inerrancy.
Thanks again
CMP,
Great explanation of the approach taken by Licona. Nevertheless, it appears that Licona’s study of the evidence has in fact led him to conclude that Matthew likely (not just possibly) did use legend to embellish his gospel. Licona’s desire to toe the inerrancy line made him walk that back a bit back to a 50/50 possibility, but it seemed motivated by political pressure rather than evidence. Now we’re seeing efforts to establish the “embellishment” theory not just as a possibility, but as a possibility that is compatible with an inspired, inerrant text. Now I agree that it is possible that Matthew embellished his account with legendary stories, but if I became convinced that this was actually true I would either abandon the doctrine of inerrancy or reject Matthew’s canonicity, not try to have it both ways. It appears (to me, anyways, and I sometimes get these things quite wrong) that Licona is uncomfortable leaving the inerrancy camp, and so he is trying to make errancy compatible with inerrancy.
I understand the argument about genre, authorial intent, idiom, and so on, but this could be deployed just as easily to make the virgin birth a symbolic or legendary embellishment. Would that be compatible with inerrancy? It just waters inerrancy down to the point where almost anything is compatible with it.
Speaking for myself, I am not looking to genre, or the idiom, first etc., as I am looking for what the Text has to say, and pressing in, the Text – Matt. 27:52-53, it seems I must look at genre, and especially Jewish. And so yes, the so-called authorial intent comes into play. I am still quite amazed that no other “Synoptic” quotes or places these verses! So the OT Apocalyptic comes into play!
@Jesse. Actually, Licona is not leaving the Inerrancy camp at all. The reality is, the doctrine of Inerrancy really doesn’t tell you that much. Geisler asks if Mary Baker Eddy could claim Inerrancy. She certainly could! If she believes the Bible is true in all that it teaches, she holds to Inerrancy. She’s just got some whacked out ideas on what it teaches. A JW could hold to Inerrancy. Arius could have held to Inerrancy. Any number of the great heretics could have.
Also, read again what the text is. Licona is not saying this is an embellishment in the sense that this is something completely made-up. Also, when he gives his argument for Matthew 27:52-53, he is not saying it is a legend, but that it is apocalyptic. There is a difference.
@John Metz. I do know Mike Licona well. I should. I’m married to his wonderful daughter! I also know Geisler well. I’m a student at SES and was a student of his and someone who I think he was watching to see what I would do. Unfortunately, I have been very disappointed with Geisler and disillusioned. (To be sure, that started with his critique of Preterism in his fourth systematic theology) Knowing some things about this situation, I find the way Geisler is behaving in this to be horrible and a terrible precedent for evangelicalism. I did write about this here: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/the-future-of-inerrancy-2/
As one who knows Licona, I can assure anyone he is a diligent seeker of truth. Also, he is willing to listen. I’m just working on my Master’s, but when we dialogue, we do just that. Dialogue. He actually listens to what I have to say. If I make a good point, he tells me and encourages me to look into it further. If my point is wrong, he tells me that as well.
@Nick: Well said in both posts, indeed inerrancy alone, or by itself, does not guarantee orthodoxy.
And Geisler is a bad evangelical pope! Let us not forget as Luther, an evangelical conscience, which actually involves freedom!
Nick, that’s an important point (belief in inerrancy is in some ways distinct from good or bad interpretation). And perhaps this is where I and others are being uncharitable to Licona. I’m inferring that Licona did NOT in fact arrive at his apocalyptic interpretation by exegeting the text in the usual manner of faithfully drawing out its meaning. Instead, he conducted an unbiased historical evaluation of the text in the evidentialist way CMP describes. This suggested to him that this particular part of the text is not historically reliable, although most of the text is. Then, wanting to stay within the technical definition of inerrancy, he brought in the notion of the apocalyptic imagery as an understood literary device rather than a legendary fabrication. Am I very wrong?
In fairness, Geisler was boneheaded to rewrite the headline coming out of this from “Gospels historically reliable despite possible literary embellishment” to “Gospels unreliable because of outright fabrications”. I think Licona is a valuable scholar and I agree that this should have been debated behind the scenes or in scholarly journals before turning it into a political circus, but here we are.
“the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend…a portion of Matthew may be legend”
How do we decide which part is fragmentary? And who gets to decide that? What if someone says that about the whole book of Matthew, or the whole New Testament?
There comes a point when you just circle the wagons and shoot at everything, including common sense. To say that a Christian should not “follow the bible no matter where it leads” is completely unorthodox.
Btw, here is a link that might be of interest to many,’Who Moved The Stone’, by Frank Morison, which was a pseudonym for Albert Henry Ross (1881-1950), who was an English journalist and novelist.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/whomovedthestone.htm
@Nick:
Thanks for your comments and for the post you linked. Like you, in simplicity, I believe in the inerrancy of the scripture. However, this has proven difficult to define for many legitimate believers and this particular dispute does not seem to have a positive outcome in view that will advance our understanding of inerrancy.
How literal must we be? There are things in the Bible which are not meant to be literal. As an example, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God does not mean that He is a wooly animal with four legs and a tail! This despite artistic renditions to the contrary.
While I don’t agree with Licona’s view about the “dead saints,” I do not believe he challenged inerrancy; it is a matter of interpretation.
My first question, though perhaps not well stated, was meant to apply generally. When such situations arise, it seems better to have a private dialogue or a fellowship among brothers to find out what someone is really saying rather than to take them out of context, etc. It seems that many in such disputes deal with abstract issues and disregard the person behind the statements. As you point out, this is not helpful.
In conjunction with that question is a more specific one. Are there things behind the scenes in this controversy that contribute to the acrimony? Perhaps this should be left as a rhetorical question due to its sensitive nature.
Thanks again, Nick, CMP & readers.
When we look at the literal text of Matt. 27:52-53…
“And the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints having fallen asleep were raised. And having gone out of from the tombs after the resurrection of him they entered into the holy city and they appeared to many.” (Lit., trans.)
Again, on the face of it and our first look, this appears historical. However, when we look at it more closely, we note there is a real question about just when the “saints” are “raised”, and when they do “appear”? Where and how do we apply this in a chronological and ordered sequence? And when we also note that no other Synoptic Gospel supplies this information at all, it becomes even more perplexing? And also since there is not a historical line anywhere about people rising from the dead and appearing in the “holy city” (at the death of Christ), I mean quite literally. And so we simply must look at the Jewish genre, and see if this helps us to better understand this Text. And this is work and essence of Mike Licona’s position here. And as noted this is an interpretative issue, and not at all directed towards inerrancy. Really simple, rather!
Good clarification of the issue and the apparent approach of Licona. I would say you’ve built a nice evidential case for what you say.
On another note, and slightly off topic, I wonder in re to the original quiz (why do you believe the resurrection) if all four answers actually start with certain presuppositions.
It seems to me that the Bible itself (mostly) speaks from this perspective.
Having said that, I also think the self-aware presuppositionalist could write a book like Licona with that sort of evidential angle.
I guess the key for any self-aware presuppositionalist is to be humble enough to question their own presuppositions.
Dr Luke seems to take the Licona approach rather than the presup approach. Luke 1:1ff. All are reasonable (except maybe the fidest.
Closer to the presup here myself, but then I am also closer to a biblical theology itself.