Would Christianity Be Worth It If There Was No Resurrection?

I would have to disagree with the author’s parents completely. Right before I Cor. 15:19, there are these verses:

“14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”

I don’t know what the author’s parents were thinking, but if the resurrection is not true, we should be spending our time looking for what IS true, and certainly not bearing false witness or wasting time on false religion.

However, Christ is risen, and we do rejoice therein.

It seems like there is often a theme in preaching and teaching—maybe especially to teens and kids—that the Christian way of life is the best of all possible lives in terms of outcomes in this life. So, “sin will ruin your life” and “obedience is the life of blessing.” And so forth.

It has the benefit of being sort of mostly true.

But details matter. The truth is more complex, for a ton of reasons, but including:

• Proverbs like most of the OT assumes a Mosaic-covenant-promises context
• “The life of blessing” that is built in obedience is not necessarily “blessing as we carelessly and shortsightedly think of it.” So if I suffer and become a better person, is that blessing? Absolutely. But that’s not usually how we think of “blessing,” especially if we’re young or otherwise immature.
• Ecclesiastes
• Jeremiah
• Most of the prophets

So, with a huge “other things being equal,” you could say living the life is happier and more prosperous than not—theoretically with or without the Resurrection. But you really have to look at the life through a straw.

But that hasn’t stopped a lot of itinerant revivalists from preaching that version of things.

I am reminded, as I see this article, of the example of Puddleglum the Marsh-wiggle in the control of the Lady of the Green Kirtle, who tries to seduce Puddleglum with the notion that Narnia and Aslan were not real--and Puddleglum realizes that even if the witch is right, he still prefers the notion of Narnia and Aslan to the underworld. This article has something to do with the marsh-wiggle, and yes, we do well to recognize the goodness of Christ and plunge our own feet into the fire to break the spell of the Devil.

But that said, if we are indeed to become worm-food instead of tenants in the Lord's apartments, I've got to go with 1 Corinthians 15. Just because the Patriarchs continued in faith when they did not yet see the promises does not mean that the fulfillment of those promises is not important. The reality of Christ matters.

Aaron, I don’t disagree with what you are saying about the Christian life. However, IF the resurrection were not true, then why should I believe anything else the scriptures are telling me? The promises it makes elsewhere (including about the blessings of obedience) would be suspect if such a key event and part of scripture as the resurrection were false.

I’m not saying that means choosing a life of dissolution. But if Christianity is not true, then I would argue that there is other truth I should be trying to find. I personally think there is enough evidence even outside the scriptures to not accept the “we’re just animals that have evolved more highly than the others,” so I would not accept either of the following:

1. Following a false religion that clearly is not the source of all truth (since key things are lies) is better than doing something else.
2. Living only the way I please without any knowledge of truth would be better than searching for what IS true and following that.

That makes perfect sense to me.

And it underscores the folly of presenting the Christian way of life as a “well it works for personal happiness” recipe. To say it another way, whether it’s true matters more than weather it’s rewarding. Ultimately of course it is rewarding, but ultimately is not “today in every way.”

I don’t think the kids were buying it in youth chapel either. Though we couldn’t have articulated at the time that true matters more than effective, the caricature we were hearing was transparently oversimplified even to youth with so little experience of the world. I wish it was all a thing of the past but I occasionally still hear of this sort of preaching still going on at camp and so forth. And we wonder why they grow up and ‘deconstruct.’ (The ones who deconstruct in real time are better off and less likely to toss the baby with the bathwater, I think.)

I way I understand Paul in these verses is that, if Christ never rose from the dead, then faith in a Christ that never rose from the dead doesn't do you any good -- you are still dead in your sins (1 Cor 15:17). Paul is not contemplating that there is then no God or that the OT scriptures are invalid. He is saying, if Christ didn't raise from the dead, then you still need a savior because you are still under the wrath of God. If Christ never rose, then Christianity is worthless as a way to become reconciled to God. If your faith is in a false Messiah, then you are still in the kingdom of darkens, and under sin, death, and the law. Basically we'd be in a position of still looking for the Messiah, and relating to God for salvation by trusting in that future Messiah. God's way would still be the best way and the right way.

I think I mostly see it that way also. I mean, the inference that the entire faith collapses is pretty unavoidable today. It was pretty unavoidable then, but a bit less because the apostles were still on the scene and the Scriptures were not complete. Arguably, the credibility of the Book was less at stake.

But I’m talking myself out of my mostly yes, maybe, because even if the NT was still in process, the core message of the apostles and the epistles and whatever gospels were in circulation was still that that Jesus Christ died for sinners and rose again. The gospel.

So, the Bible was still somewhat fluid, but the message was not. And the message could not cohere without the resurrection.

Where I think I can still say ‘mostly yes’ is that I think Paul’s focus there is exactly as you have said. He does not talk about “our faith as a system” there. What he does talk about is sin, judgment, and hopelessness without a resurrected Savior. And I do think it’s important not to lose sight of that out of interest in the impact on our systematic theology, so to speak.

Back to the original article though, I think when people say things like the writer’s parents did, they are just trying to say that it’s still a good life as far as lifestyles go—even without the redeemed eternity. That’s pretty plausible, though maybe not as obvious as many think. It’s really a pretty interesting question for a debate class because without trying very hard you could make a case for the affirmative or the negative.