The Resurrection: Mere attraction to truth is not enough

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 20, 2026

In another life, when I used to teach Apologetics at Christendom College, I would always set aside some time to discuss “motives of credibility”. What is it about Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, that motivates us to believe and act on their claims? Clearly one important factor is the credibility of the person making the claim. For example, we tend to value the testimony of someone we have always found serious, sober, well-balanced, intelligent, trustworthy and concerned with our well-being. Such a person is more likely to be both careful about what he claims to be true and reliable in his assessment of the grounds for any claim he makes. In other words, the superior character of one who makes a claim is a “motive of credibility” for those who are considering the veracity of the claim.

One motive for believing any statement, then, is the trust we place in the one who makes it. But when it comes to a religion or a philosophy—which, if truly embraced, create a way of life—motives of credibility invariably go beyond our assessment of the reliability of the witnesses to the principles by which that way of life is guided and the results that ensue. After all, each way of life has consequences or fruits. If we see, for example, that those who seriously devote themselves to Christian beliefs sacrifice themselves for the good of others, produce remarkable works of literature and art, create beneficial institutions, appear to be personally well-balanced, hold themselves to a high moral code, exhibit both extraordinary humility and remarkable cheerfulness, bear wrongs with enormous patience, and tend to raise remarkably harmonious families, then these characteristics become, for the rest of us, motives of credibility with respect to their beliefs.

Moreover, the same thing is true in an institutional way (see my essay from July 2025, Motives of credibility and predispositions to faith). The striking consistency of Catholic teaching over a long period of history, the attractiveness of the saints, the superhuman courage of the martyrs, the singular universality of the Church throughout the entire world, and her marvelous stability and endurance over a great span of time: All of these things are motives of credibility. That is, they are the kinds of visible manifestations that are likely to motivate others to seriously consider whether the Catholic Faith is true.

As I have often pointed out, the understanding of “faith” in the letters of St. Paul is a blend of three closely related dispositions: belief in Christ’s teachings, obedience to Christ’s commands, and trust in Christ’s promises. Faith, then, is ultimately a way of life rooted firmly in God. The stability and fruitfulness of those who already possess this Faith are in themselves tremendous motives of credibility for others. Scandal, however, has exactly the opposite effect. Therefore, the Church’s members might be wise to ask: “How am I doing as a motive of credibility to others?” And it is no wonder St. Peter warned us (1 Pet 3:15-16) to keep our consciences clear so that those who revile our good behavior in Christ may be put to shame!

The Resurrection, not a motive of credibility

But motives of credibility presuppose the existence of something to be believed. As important as motives of credibility are, there comes a time when each of us must go beyond the mere attractiveness of Christian beliefs, Christian lives, and Christian fruits in order to come to grips with the fundamental claims of both Christ and the Catholic Church. There is a difference between the points of attraction (which serve as motives) and the realities which give rise to them (which we must ultimately affirm or deny). And the first and most fundamental of these claims demands more than high ideals, good feelings, and positive outcomes. Either Jesus Christ has risen from the dead or he has not.

The starkness of that statement separates what we might call the inspirational qualities of Catholicism from the hard fact which underlies the entire Christian enterprise. Other statements have a similar quality: Either the risen Christ founded the Catholic Church or He did not; either the risen Christ gave that Church a juridical structure under the authority of Peter and his successors or He did not. These realities demand not attraction but assent or rejection; to recognize (if we do recognize) their appropriateness or their attractiveness or even their fruitfulness is not sufficient.

For example, we can point to the remarkable longevity of the Catholic Church, especially given its continuous consistency in teachings, rituals, structures, goals and fruits over a period of two millennia, and we can wonder if any of this is even possible unless it is somehow preserved and protected by God. No other institution has this record, which is why in itself this has now become a motive of credibility. But none of these motives have any discernible purpose if Jesus Himself did not actually establish the Catholic Church, with Peter at its head, after proving his Divinity by rising from the dead exactly as He claimed he would.

There is, then, a dramatic difference between a motivation to be interested in, attracted to, or impressed by Christianity, or even to be convinced of the institutional benefits of the Catholic Church, and a compelling reason to believe that all this was actually started and has been conserved by God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, true God and true man. My point is that the Resurrection is more than a mere motive of credibility. It should never be left lying around as one of many attractive or arresting features in that category.

A basis in fact

The claims of Christianity and the Catholic Church rely not on their attraction to others but on the actual realities we call facts. And the first of these facts is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

To put this another way, we do not accept the Christian faith and live as Christians because we find this or that aspect of Christianity to be historically or intellectually or aesthetically or emotionally attractive, or even because we have discovered this or that reason to be well-disposed to the Catholic Church. These reasons would all be motives of credibility—attractions which make us slow down and look more deeply into the claims of the Church, or even to be attracted by the possible veracity of her claims. But the Resurrection of Christ is the fundamental historical fact which changes the question from “is Christianity attractive” to “is Christianity true.” And, if so, what am I called to do?

To put things mildly, Jesus Christ went to a lot of trouble to prove a point about Himself. But He did prove it. After that fundamental fact is accepted, the only significant question is what arrangements He made for the period after His return to the Father. It is not tenable that He expended all that effort and all that suffering only to disappear from our lives. It is not tenable that He went to all that trouble for only a relatively small number of persons who lived in one particular place and at one particular time, with no plan to make Himself really and substantially present to all.

This is why the fact of the Resurrection matters, and this is why it matters that the Catholic Church alone traces her history to Christ and His apostles. And it is even why it matters that this same Church offers so many motives of credibility. But the value of a motive depends on a more fundamental reality. In this case, the reality is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and then made Himself truly present in the Catholic Church, throughout the world, until the end of time. If Truth is the mind’s grasp of reality, then a mere attraction to the truth will never be enough.