The Cost of Taking God Serious
Is it okay if I wrestle with God and my faith?
Lately, I’ve said that I’m not sure about the resurrection. Not because I believe it isn’t true, but because it is a historical claim that, if taken seriously, reshapes the entire framework of Christianity.
Many people who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus seem to hold it casually. I don’t. I’m contending with what such a claim would actually mean for my life.
I’ve slid into agnosticism, not because I reject God or faith, and not because I’m trying to be edgy or noncommittal. I’ve landed here because honesty matters more to me than certainty. Agnosticism, for me, is not saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying, “I will not pretend to know what I do not.”
What agnosticism has not done is turn me into a nihilist. I refuse the idea that uncertainty means nothing matters. In fact, the reason I won’t fake belief is that meaning matters too much. Responsibility, morality, truth, and the shape of my life still carry weight, even when metaphysical certainty does not.
I have a couple of people in my life who are walking with me in this wrestling.
One argument I’ve heard is that calling the resurrection “extraordinary” implies atheism, because if God created reality, then resurrection should not be extraordinary at all. That isn’t what I’m saying.
We do not witness people rising from the dead today.
We are not documenting contemporary resurrections.
That doesn’t settle the question, but it does raise one.
What I wrestle with in Christianity is the idea that correct doctrine is a prerequisite for knowing Christ. According to one friend, the primary purpose of the gospel is not avoiding hell, not even eternal life, and not a new set of behaviors, but knowing Christ and participating in his purpose.
That purpose is the reconciliation of all creation to God.
The fundamental misunderstanding of Creation and Christ is treating them as a transaction.
Romans 8, 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians 1 describe the gospel as cosmic in scope. God’s purpose is to unite all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. Paul is drawing from the Psalms here. He isn’t inventing this framework.
So the question becomes: how do we know Christ?
Second Corinthians 5 speaks of a new creation through the resurrection. Participation in that new creation is described as union with Christ. John 15 uses the image of a branch abiding in the vine. Paul is describing a movement from old creation into new, a gift initiated by God.
My friend’s point is that many Christians reverse this emphasis. They make the secondary benefits of the gospel primary.
And yet, what I’m continually told is that I must first accept the resurrection as true.
Scripture is offered to support that, and that’s fine.
Another friend sent me a video by Jordan Peterson on the story of Jacob and the origin of the name Israel.
In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestles with God all night. He refuses to let go until he is blessed. He survives the encounter, but his hip is dislocated, and he walks away limping.
If faith leaves you unchanged, unmarked, and uninjured, it may not be faith at all. Jacob walks away wounded because the encounter was real.
Jacob doesn’t arrive with the correct doctrine. He doesn’t resolve metaphysics. He wrestles.
His new name becomes Israel—one who wrestles with God.
Agnosticism is not where I stop. It is where I refuse to lie while I stay in the fight. Jacob doesn’t walk away with explanations. He walks away wounded, renamed, and still engaged. If Israel means one who wrestles with God, then uncertainty is not the absence of faith. It may be the cost of taking God seriously.
I’m wrestling the resurrection:
– What kind of claim is it?
– What kind of reality does it imply?
– What kind of moral demand does it make?
– Can belief be honest rather than performative?
If the resurrection is true, what kind of life does it demand? And am I allowed to approach that demand honestly?