There are, I think (theologians are free to correct me), three incidents in the Bible story of Jesus Christ in which a truly faithful Christian must believe, in order to accept the divinity of the man who gave his name to their religion. All three are connected to his purported power over life and death.
First, there’s the matter of the virgin birth: That his mother, a virgin, was able to conceive him without resort to the activity that usually results in the loss of virginity. Of the three, this is the claim for which there is the least biblical evidence: it is essentially a matter of, like her saintly husband, taking her word for it.
Second, there’s the case of Lazarus, brought back from the dead at the command of Jesus Christ. There were, the Bible tells us, witnesses to this.
Third, and most essentially, there’s the Easter Story. It’s in the Nicene Creed, and for simplicity we’ll use the version in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, unaltered since 1662: “He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures”.
That’s the heart of the matter really: That Jesus Christ, a mortal man, came back from the dead, as attested to by, the Bible tells us, multiple witnesses amongst his followers. It is what distinguishes him from other prophets or biblical figures. Moses parted the red sea; Jesus Christ magically multiplied loaves and fishes. Yet only one of them conquered death and in so doing so proved himself more than just a man.
I write all of this by way of prologue because it is necessary to set out the stakes for the increasingly in-vogue idea of “Christianity without Christ”, which should, perhaps, be more accurately referred to as Christianity without acceptance of the divinity of Christ. If you want a sense of the growing power of that idea, then here’s perhaps the world’s most famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins, proudly declaring himself a cultural christian who, like many of us, absolutely loves a good church or cathedral:
"If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I'd choose Christianity every single time."
Self-proclaimed 'cultural Christian', @RichardDawkins, tells @RachelSJohnson he's 'slightly horrified' to hear Ramadan lights were hung on Oxford Street rather than Easter lights. pic.twitter.com/ZY2ePfpms1
— LBC (@LBC) March 31, 2024
Should the believing Christian welcome, or be irritated, by this trend?
The first thing to consider is the hypocrisy of it: If Dawkins is correct, and Jesus Christ was not divine, then far from being beautiful, most churches and cathedrals, and indeed the entirety of western civilisation – to the extent that it is founded on Christianity – is simply a monument to a lie. It was Dawkins, after all, who penned the wildly popular atheist book with the provocative title “The God Delusion”. He now appears to be arguing that mass delusion has its benefits.
Perhaps that, more than anywhere else, is the best place to start: This is a base level lesson in one of the principles of conservatism – that we should never seek to destroy that which we do not fully understand. Dawkins, for most of his career, has been pointing out what he calls a “delusion” and summoning people to wake up from it. Now, in the twilight of his career, if not his life, he’s suddenly confronted with Christianity in full retreat, and discovers that in his certainty, he may have helped with the destruction of something that was much more valuable than he understood it to be. It’s not unlike an amateur DIY enthusiast deciding to remove an ugly pillar from the middle of a room in his house, only to find out to his horror that it was supporting the roof all along.
Anger at the hypocrisy, and the damage wrought by Dawkins and others, is a natural response. It may not however be the correct one, all things considered.
As something of an agnostic myself, especially pertaining to the three questions at the beginning of this article, it seems to me somewhat short-sighted, speaking in strictly cultural terms, to worry too much about questions of divinity. The central message of the Christian faith is, after all, revolutionary and enduring regardless of whether Christ was man or God: Whether he rose again is somewhat incidental to the question of whether he voluntarily died for our sins, and was willing to sacrifice his life for what he believed to be the salvation of the rest of us. A man who preaches self-sacrifice, devotion, love, kindness, and integrity is not a bad man to place at the centre of your culture, either way.
Nor, at the end of the day, can religion have any kind of spiritual influence without first having achieved cultural influence. One of the key tenets of Christianity – the very pillar of its appeal – is that God is not simply a remote being worth following, but a flesh and blood man worth following. This is what makes the God of Christianity different – in depiction if not in name or ultimate identity – to the God of the Jews and the God of the Muslims. Rather than being a heavenly being giving orders to his earthly followers, the Christian God is in part a flesh and blood human being who endured the worst this life has to offer and showed us a way of so doing.
Is it so bad, then, that people are open to following the man first, and the God, well, not quite yet? It’s an open question, but one for Christians to consider.
Nor I think is it to anyone’s harm that a period of revisionism about the cultural and political impact of Christianity on Europe and the West should begin to take roots in the heart of people like Dawkins. Only Nixon, remember, could go to China.
To whatever extent he has influence over those who have turned their backs on Christianity, Dawkins is undoubtedly a much better messenger to a cohort of people than the Pope in Rome might be, when it comes to reminding people of the enduring value of Christian influence and ideas in our time. If it is Dawkins, rather than some prelate, who softens the hearts of the alienated when it comes to attitudes towards the role of the church in society, then there’ll be a rich irony to the fact that he, of all people, is doing God’s work.