In the debate over the existence of God there are only two positions. Either the secular, materialistic theory of reality is true or the theistic theory of reality is correct. The first demands a closed system: the physical universe is all there is. What you see (or hear, taste, touch and smell) is what you get. The material world operates according to the laws of physics and paranormal phenomena are no more than that: normal phenomena for which we do not yet have an explanation.

The theistic model is, on the other hand, open-ended. It allows for forces outside the system and independent of the system that have the power to interfere with and influence the apparently closed material cosmos. To put it in more conventional terms, the atheistic, materialistic model cannot allow for miracles. The theistic model can.

As such, the theistic model is intrinsically not only more flexible but also more open-minded and compatible with the world as we observe it. Down through history, human beings have undoubtedly experienced phenomena that do not fit their everyday perceptions of reality. The unexpected occurs. Reality is rubbery. Horatio’s philosophy proves inadequate. Most often those odd experiences were simply normal occurrences for which the observers did not yet have a natural explanation. Some defy all but a miraculous explanation.

However, one does not need a multiplicity of miracles to posit the presence of the omnipotent. One miracle will do. If one miracle can be proven, or at least shown to be the most probable solution to a paranormal experience, then the system is open, not closed. If there is but one miracle then there is a force (or forces) beyond and independent of the material, closed system. A miracle may not provide watertight proof of the existence of the God described by Christian theology, but it does point to there being more to reality than the closed, materialistic system demanded by atheism.

At Easter, the Christian theist proposes the Resurrection as that one miracle, and it astonishes me that Christian apologists are not more assertive in proclaiming and, if not proving, then showing how the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most plausible explanation for the events in Jerusalem two thousand years ago.

Among Catholic authors explaining, defining and defending the historic Resurrection of Christ are Brant Pitre, Carl Olson and Gerald O’Collins SJ. Brant Pitre is among the best of the new generation of Catholic biblical scholars. He publishes prolifically, specialising in the Jewish context of the Gospels. He also produces weekly biblical commentary at the Catholic Productions website. His reflections on the Mass readings are an invaluable sermon preparation resource.

Pitre’s 2016 book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ uses the Jewish context of the Gospels, the early Church Fathers and manuscript evidence to affirm the reliability of the New Testament accounts. He directly addresses the Resurrection in the context of Jesus’s claims to divinity, the empty tomb and post-Resurrection appearances, showing how the data supports a literal bodily Resurrection rather than legend or hallucination. It is particularly strong for lay readers and counters popular critics such as Bart Ehrman.

Olson’s book Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? is now in its twentieth year but is just as readable and relevant as ever. Olson is editor of Catholic World Report, published by San Francisco-based Ignatius Press. A former Evangelical Christian, Carl Olson has drawn on his Evangelical roots to write a punchy, assertive defence of the cardinal Christian doctrine. He examines the historical evidence for Jesus’s death, the empty tomb, the appearances and the rapid spread of the early Church’s proclamation. Olson engages common objections (e.g. stolen body, hallucinations or legendary development) with substantive but non-technical answers, drawing on scripture, history and the Catechism. It is my top choice for Catholics seeking a straightforward apologetic resource.

In Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, O’Collins offers a more academic and weighty defence. A respected theologian, O’Collins’s book combines historical analysis of the Gospel accounts and early traditions with theological depth, exploring the Resurrection as a real event with transformative meaning for Christian faith, the Trinity and salvation.

A new book on the subject is Arise: A Fifty Day Journey into the Mystery of the Resurrection by first-time author Laura Bedingfeld. Bedingfeld takes the reader from first glimpses of the Resurrection in the typology of the Old Testament through the Gospels, Acts, the epistles and then the Book of Revelation. She has broken her study down into 50 daily readings, providing an accessible but scholarly Bible study, perfect for lectio divina during the Easter season.

I used Bedingfeld’s book during Lent as a preparation for Easter and was inspired to trace this one great miracle down through the history of salvation. Bedingfeld has done us the service not simply of defending the one necessary miracle but of helping us to see its integration into the whole cycle of providence and to apply it to one’s own spiritual journey.

Fr Longenecker’s journey from American Evangelicalism to the Church of England and finally back to the USA to be ordained as a Catholic priest is told in There and Back Again: A Somewhat Religious Odyssey.