From Protestia:

Speaking on a recent episode of the Premiere Unbelievable? podcast, N.T. Wright addresses controversial comments he made to The Australian in 2006. At the time he said: 

I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection. But the view I take of them – and they know this – is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.

Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian.

I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational.

Read it all.

N.T. (Tom) Wright is one of my heroes. Of all the theologians, teachers, and scholars who have had a positive impact on my spiritual and professional life as a Christian man and priest—and that list is kinda long—Wright stands at the top of the list. You can imagine, then, my shock and dismay when I read the article’s title from above. To say that I am heartbroken over this is massive understatement, especially because Wright is almost singlehandedly responsible for clearing up my own muddled (and heretical) views on Christ’s Resurrection, thinking that resulted from teachers who really didn’t believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ because it is too unbelievable from a human perspective. The irony is palpable.

As I read the article I realized the situation is a bit more nuanced than its title would have us believe, but it is still catastrophic, nuance notwithstanding. Why? Because to believe in Christ and his saving/healing power, is to believe in his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension as I explain below. Simply put, if you take away Christ’s Resurrection, you take away every other single claim the New Testament (NT) writers made about him. No Resurrection, no Christ, no salvation for humans. Period. End of story.

Having met Bishop Wright once and having read almost everything he has published, I know that Wright has a huge and generous pastor’s heart and I appreciate greatly that he does; would that every priest and bishop have such a heart! I can also relate to his agonizing over his friend Marcus Borg, a well-known heretic who was part of the Jesus Seminar (Seminar: From the Latin semi and arse, meaning any half-assed discussion, a name that truly fit that particular “Seminar”). I have family and friends who are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word and I fear for the eternal destiny of their souls; it is heartbreaking and an ongoing heavy burden for me. I think they are terribly misguided and foolish not to believe in Christ, and I pray daily that God will change their minds and hearts and heal them from their foolishness because I do not want to see them headed toward eternal destruction. How could I claim to love them and remain silent about their unbelief? I even pray for friends who have died without knowing and/or believing in Christ and it grieves me to the core. Yet I still ask God to be merciful to them and to remember them for good, not for judgment because I know first-hand that God is a merciful, gracious, loving, and just God and I believe in the saving and forgiving power of the Cross of Jesus Christ. There is no biblical warrant for me praying in this manner for the dead and my prayers are probably futile. But I loved them in this mortal life and because I loved them, I can do no other, futile as it might be. So to repeat, I get where Wright is coming from and like him, I believe our ultimate salvation is for God alone to decide, not us. But I also believe that salvation without a saving faith in Christ, a saving faith grounded in his Resurrection, is very unlikely, if not impossible.

That is why I have never, ever once thought that belief in the Resurrection was optional for Christians because the Resurrection is at the very heart and soul of the Christian Faith and is entirely non-negotiable. I am not the only one who thinks this way. Consider what Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church a few decades after Christ’s Death and Resurrection:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.

But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins.In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world (1 Corinthians 15.3-9, 12-19).

Saint Paul pulls no punches and makes no bones about this matter: Belief in the Resurrection is not optional for Christians. No Resurrection, no Christian Faith, no forgiveness of sins, no conquering of Death, no hope for a future bodily existence living in the direct Presence of God the Father in his new world, the new heavens and earth (see, e.g., Revelation 21.1-8). Elsewhere Saint Paul demonstrated that he too had a huge and generous pastoral heart and cared about the welfare of his people (see, e.g., here). But in Saint Paul’s view their welfare demanded that they believe the Faith once delivered to the saints by the apostles who had been eyewitnesses to Christ’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. If Christ isn’t raised, then his Death on the Cross did not take care of our sins and reconcile us to God once and for all, and if we are not reconciled to God then we have no hope and chance of living with him forever because our God is a Holy and just God who cannot allow any kind of sin (or sinner) to be in his Presence, and for our own good—who in his/her right mind would want to live with Evil forever? The stakes couldn’t be higher and by claiming that a belief in the Resurrection is optional for his friend (and therefore others like him), Wright is sadly prevaricating about this Truth out of a misguided sense of love, loyalty, and friendship for his wayward friend. I cannot imagine Saint Paul ever doing such a thing under any circumstance. That did not seem to deter Wright from quoting Saint Paul in Romans 10.9 in defending his opinion about Borg and Borg’s rejection of Christ’s Resurrection: “If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” But this is cherry picking Saint Paul’s entire body of work and is quite uncharacteristic of Wright as a theologian and scholar. Moreover, if one does not believe in bodily resurrection, one cannot really believe that Christ was raised from the dead as Saint Paul and countless orthodox Christians have understood resurrection.

Borg, of course, didn’t believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ, mistakenly believing that Christ was raised in some spiritual sense. This isn’t a new way of thinking. It’s a heresy that has been with us in various forms from almost the beginning. But as Wright brilliantly explains and defends in his books, The Resurrection of the Son of God and Surprised by Hope (a book of which I keep extra copies on hand to give to others who struggle with their faith and/or the Resurrection), resurrection for the first Christians (and ever since) meant and means bodily resurrection. We see this belief manifesting itself in the gospel writers’ narrative of Christ’s Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Here, for example, is Saint Luke recounting a scene from the Last Supper:

Then [Jesus] took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. Then he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.” (Luke 22.17-18).

If resurrection means some kind of continuing spiritual existence in a disembodied state as Borg and the other Platonists/heretics believe (and I used to think before I truly understood the nature of resurrection and the New Testament’s proclamation of the new creation), how will Jesus and his followers be able to drink wine and eat bread together? Does not compute. No, as Wright and others have brilliantly defended, Christ’s Resurrection points to the promise of God’s new creation, the new heavens and earth, a new bodily form of existence. God had to become human in Jesus to deal with the sins of the body, body being defined as body, mind, and spirit—the whole human package—not just our physical bodies. We see the NT writers affirm this in various places (cf. Luke 24.35-43). Consider, for example, this from the writer of the letter to the Hebrews:

¹⁴ Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. ¹⁵ Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying (Hebrews 2.14-15).

Our first ancestors sinned in the body, in their flesh and blood, in their body and mind and spirit—the whole human package—the way God created them and us, and were expelled from Paradise, from living in God’s direct Presence, the very definition of Paradise (Genesis 3). And because they had sinned in the body, Christ had to take on a human body to deal with and conquer Sin for all time. Saint Paul likewise affirms this when he wrote to the Church at Rome:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ² For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. ³ For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ⁴ so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. ⁵ For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.⁶ To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, ⁸ and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8.1-8).

Did you catch that? On the cross, God condemned our sin in the flesh (body), not Jesus the Son, so that God would not have to condemn us as we rightfully deserve; hence, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8.1). In other words, Christ bore the terrible brunt of God’s wrath and anger on all human sin willingly and in cooperation with the Father to spare us individually from having to bear that wrath forever in Hell. The body is important to God because we are important to God as creatures who bear his Image. And so God rescued the body as well as our souls because humans are comprised of body and soul, not just soul or not just body. This has been the consistent story of Scripture from beginning to end. None of this would be true if Christ were not raised from the dead as Saint Paul asserts above. The Resurrection validated Christ’s saving Death for us.

Moreover, without the bodily Resurrection of Christ, his Ascension becomes nonsensical. If Christ were nothing but a disembodied spirit, his body would not need to ascend into heaven, into God’s realm. But from the very beginning the Church has proclaimed that Christ’s resurrected body has gone to be with the Father in heaven, not just his spirit. Again, no Resurrection, no Ascension, no promised new creation, no Christian Faith.

And after the apostles had died, the Church has consistently maintained this Resurrection hope and faith (and not without a struggle!). Hear Irenaeus, a spiritual grandson of the apostles:

If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: “In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.” (Read more.)

Consider also the Creeds of the Church, statements of faith that sprang in part from the various heresies that threatened the Church’s teaching about resurrection and new creation. In the Apostles’ Creed, the creed usually recited at Christian funerals, we affirm explicitly the “resurrection of the body” as we do implicitly in the Nicene Creed (“we look forward to the resurrection of the dead”). Again, as the NT writers, the Apostles, the Church, and Wright himself all maintain, when we are talking resurrection we are talking about bodies. Creation matters to God because God created it and us to be good, not for evil and rebellion, and God has promised to restore his good but corrupted and cursed creation one day. That’s the overarching story of Holy Scripture.

I have already gone on longer than I intended, but this matter is critically important. The Church and world need Christian leaders to be clear and bold in their thinking, teaching, and preaching about the Faith because it is the Story of God’s power to save us from Sin and Death by intervening on our behalf personally in the man Jesus Christ. We have suffered too long from muddled and heretical Christian teachers who really don’t believe their own Story, the Story of Christ and God’s plan of salvation as laid out in the Old and New Testaments. This has led to Christians becoming timid in (and often dismissive of) their faith because they have been taught a watered down, toothless, and false version of the Christian Faith, and we certainly don’t need one of the best of the Christian thinkers heretofore to be giving damaging mixed and muddled messages like he did in the above interview, well-intentioned as it might be. The Resurrection is absolutely critical to having a saving faith in Christ. It is what makes Christianity the only real game in town. Without it, we are lost and without hope. With it, we have the hope and promise of the fulfillment of God’s promise to finally and completely deal with the problems of Evil and Sin, problems that inevitably lead to our death and destruction without God’s intervention on our behalf in and through Christ. I pray and hope Bishop Wright will recant this nonsense and repent of this grave error. Resurrection—bodily resurrection—is not an optional belief for Christians. I pray and hope he will once again speak boldly and clearly about Christ’s Death and Resurrection. Otherwise he ceases to be a credible witness to Christ and that would be a true shame and loss for the Church. Lord have mercy.

For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.