I have found that sometimes there is a circular reasoning present when I try to explain Christianity. For example, if I am asked why I believe in God, I would say something like, "I trust the Bible." If asked why I trust the Bible, I would say something like, "I believe in God."
Now my answers normally don't carry that degree of clarity and are not so concise. I would tend to flower things up and explain it with a lot of words. But sometimes my overflow of words may come from some subconscious discomfort with the circularity of this reasoning that is at the heart of things.
Is this a problem? What kind of discomfort should I feel? Should my faith be weakened by this?
I think there is a crucial difference between knowing the truth of Christ and showing the truth of Christ. Sometimes I may be speechless to explain, but that should not mean that I cease to believe. If a skeptic finds my reasoning lacking, that does not mean that it really is lacking or that I should conclude that it is not compelling. Why should I put my own faith in the hands of skeptics?
Suppose I am coming to Christianity for the first time and I want to evaluate it as a system of beliefs. The first thing I might ask is, "Is this coherent? Do the beliefs cohere with each other and form a system that is not shot through with inconsistency?" The second thing I might ask is, "Why should I believe this? Are there any good reasons to believe this? Are there good reasons to disbelieve this?" The third thing I might ask is, "How does this system and worldview mesh with what I already believe? What things and beliefs might I have to jettison if I am to take this on board?"
In real life, I doubt that anyone's story of coming to Christianity - or anything else for that matter - will look so tidy as a linear journey through these three question types. But something like this must happen.
Here is the part that may not seem fair. Faith is needed at each of these crucial steps. Faith is like the mysterious lubricant that makes the engine run smoothly. It is the animating thing that gets us from point A to point B. I say this, even as I realize how infuriating this might sound. And I say this as someone who does not think that faith is divorced from reason.
For the first question - the question of coherence - Christianity plunges us into mystery. The system of belief does seem coherent and consistent to me. I am amazed at the unity of the Bible, though it is written through multiple genres, times, cultures, authors, and purposes. For the difficult passages, I generally find the attempts to harmonize them compelling. And I know that Christianity plunges us into the deepest of mysteries, how humans are both body and soul, how there is an unseen world of spiritual forces, how God became incarnate in Jesus, how God himself is described as three-in-one, and how Jesus atones for sin on the cross. I really do believe in these things. I think it is reasonable to believe in these things. But I think that faith does something to help me towards being compelled by those reasons. Doubt will find much to stumble over here.
For the second question - that of seeing the reasons for Christianity - faith gives my heart an openness. I do not believe neutrality exists in the pursuit of God and ultimate reality. A Christian and an atheist can both look at the exact same evidence and with clear conscience reach completely opposite conclusions. Answered prayers - in my life and others - constitute one of the reasons I believe in Jesus. But I have never experienced any clear miracles - that is suspension of the laws of nature - that were undeniably God in a more restricted sense. I believe that God's providence through the events of my life show his love and care. But the atheist may look at these same things and see coincidence and gullibility on my part.
An atheist and I might both sit down to look at scientific evidence. I will reject extrapolations that they may find completely reasonable about how life began and continued. They will likely reject evidence that I find compelling that the universe had a definite beginning. We are both looking at the same facts, but neither of us is neutral, and it is exactly that part of us that extrapolates and interprets the facts. It is that part of us that lends meaning to the facts. I see God all over the place in science! But I definitely have friends who disagree. I think that faith and lack of faith colors everything we see when we come to it. A neutral weighing of the evidence and the reasons is not possible, though each party will try to position himself as the most reasonable, the most neutral in the debate. Faith will gladly see reasons that doubt will likely reject.
For the third question - that of Christianity's relationship to the things I already hold to - faith is still needed. Everyone approaches Christianity - or any other belief system - with a heart that has been previously shaped and a mind that has been previously shaped. Paul speaks in Philippians about counting everything as loss for the sake of Christ. Coming to Christ is - or should be - a huge existential step in which we give him the permission to throw anything else overboard in order to make room for him. But in getting him, we get everything. So the throwing overboard of lesser treasures is a joy. Some people try to tack Jesus on to the lives they were already living, and they have not really gotten Jesus, but a small plastic Jesus figurine stowed in the cupboard, useless, powerless. This is not true Christianity. Because this is not what you do if you really believe. Plunging forth with this step requires faith. No one gives up everything for Christ without believing in him.
Faith is needed, therefore, to see Christ at all, to find the reasons for belief in him compelling, and to take the steps that faith requires in allowing Jesus to take full residence in our lives.
So in order to have faith we need to have faith?
Yes.
A frustrating answer for you, I am sure, but also initially frustrating to me, too. I want to give you an answer that you will like, but I can only give you the answer of which I am convinced.
Yes.
Romans 1:16-17 says, For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is
the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew
first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is
revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall
live by faith."
In our salvation, God's righteousness is revealed to us. From faith... for faith.
The problem, I think, is that we want to be in control and to feel in control of our own lives and destinies and minds. We want reality to flatter us and our critical ability to understand and evaluate reality. It is not flattering to us to know that faith requires faith. Because this pushes us to realize that - if God is real - faith in God is a gift. If we cannot generate our own faith, if we cannot muster it up by our own willpower, we must - especially in the first instance - receive it as a gift.
We find Jews and Greeks, rich and poor, stupid and smart, good and bad people among the ranks of Christianity. The gift of faith is spread liberally. To show that God does not play favorites. To remind us that it is not about how smart we are. We want to be flattered as the critical and neutral judge of the evidence, but God knows that this is not what we need need. We need to be humbled. In our humility we will have greater capacity to enjoy him. We need to realize that we have not earned or deserved this faith, but that it comes to us as a free gift. This is grace.
If we need faith to have and sustain faith, we must first get it from somewhere. If we cannot generate it, it must come to us from outside of ourselves. I think Jesus would say that we need to be born again...(You were not the cause of your own birth. You will not be the author of your own faith. I am fighting all of our most cherished modern creeds in saying this.)
If God is real, then I need faith. (If he is real, I do not want to disbelieve in him.) If God is real, then I need for him to break into my circle, into my life, into my thoughts, and plant a seed of faith. I need him to open my eyes to truth.
Let's think about my other circle from the beginning of this entry. Why do I believe in God? I believe in the Bible. Why do I believe in the Bible? I believe in God.
I have read enough apologetics to have been trained that this is a bad way to answer these questions. But when all is said and done, I feel the gut reality of this line of reasoning, and I know that for probably the majority of honest Christians, this is not far off the mark. It would feel like I and Christendom are in a helpless circle. Except for the presence of God!
I have never met God face to face. I have never spoken with him audibly. I sometimes have doubts. For these reasons, I am hesitant to declare so boldly, "I know God," in answer to the question, "Why do I believe in God?" or "Why do I believe in the Bible?" Some people share that hesitation. Others are strong enough in their relationship to God that they do not need to share that hesitation.
I may be in a circle, but from where I sit, it is more like a circle supported by the hand of God. I do not simply believe in the Bible because I believe in God or vice versa, but I believe in the Bible because I believe I have experienced the true God speaking to me through the Bible. I have felt his presence, though my words fail at description. A true experience of God is a very good reason to believe. My faith is by no means foundation-less, even if communication about it is difficult. And it is not that talking about such experience is impossible or useless. We can give testimony to this relationship and experience. This is simply evidence of a sort that does not necessarily compel belief in the listener. But because neutrality is impossible, that is not unique to testimony of personal experience. There does not exist such evidence that will compel any listener no matter how skeptical. Thanks be to God that I am simply called to witness to Christ, but the Holy Spirit is the one who makes the testimony compelling and causes people to believe and come alive and see Jesus. He moves where he will.
From this perspective, my circular reasoning need not bother me. If God exists, it is reasonable to believe that he created me with this capacity for faith and relationship with him, that he wrote Scripture as a vehicle for that, and that when he chooses to, he may awaken faith. He may present himself to me through the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit to believe in the truths of Christianity. Now, this does not guarantee the truth of Christianity, but it means that I can feel justified in believing in Christ without having to mount a full apologetics case. Though my skeptical friend may present me with a question that I don't yet - or may not find - an answer for, I may still sleep at night with a clear conscience concerning my faith. The ultimate ground for my faith is the presence of Christ in my life, not the strength of my own arguments.
I used to look down on the masses within my congregation and around the world who did not know all the awesome apologetic arguments that I know. I do think that apologetics are important and edifying, but my reasoning as spelled out above helps me to not feel so sorry for the older Christians I know who will soon go to be with God. They have walked with God and they have prayed and they know his voice. And to know and hear the still, small voice of God even a little is more to be treasured than ten-thousand rock solid apologetic arguments. If God is real, we might expect him to awaken faith by presenting himself to people, not merely as the end of some syllogism. God is far more than the end of a logical argument. Thank goodness! Who would want to worship a God who was merely a logical necessity and not a living Lord, a loving Savior?!
If you know God, be able to share why. And do not be afraid or ashamed. Consider the following analogy. If you have been falsely accused of a crime, it does not matter how convincing a case the other side can make against you. You still know your own innocence deep down with a stubborn sort of conviction. They may ask you to explain the evidence away, and you may not be able to effectively do so, but that should do nothing to shake your own confidence that you are innocent.
Similarly, it would be absurd for someone to try to convince you that your best friend didn't exist.
What may look like a circle to my skeptical friends may not, in reality, be a circle. Christ alone should be the ultimate ground of my faith in Christ. I need not dilute my own foundation, even as I try to give reasons that will appeal to my skeptical friends.
The truth of Christianity does not depend on your own personal preferences. The truth of Christianity does not depend on how eloquent you are. The truth of Christianity does not depend on your recognition of the truth of Christianity. The truth of Christianity does not depend on whether or not your reasoning looks circular.
"Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." (Flannery O'Connor)
As my Dad would say, "It is what it is."
What happens to reasoning then? Is it null and void and useless? By no means! First, we are commanded to give a reason for the hope that is within us. Those reasons exist.
Coming to God, and accepting the Bible as true, does not mean that we must shut our brains off. It may mean - and I believe it means - that we are for the first time submitting it to the ultimate standard that will free it to really explore truth.
If faith is a gift, what is the point of presenting evidence? I think that we can only look at this sort of thing retrospectively. There are plenty of examples of atheists who set out trying to proving that God didn't exist, and a good look at the evidence convinced them otherwise. Now in retrospect, I think they would attribute their examination and understanding of the evidence as the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Seeing reasons to believe can certainly be part of a person's testimony in how they became a Christian.
For this reason, I consider the use of evidences the same way I do the presentation of the Gospel. I am called to share. I spread the seeds, and God gives the growth. I do not know which seeds will stick. But I am not called to know that.
I think a lot of this comes down to the same mystery between God's sovereignty and the dignity of free will. There is a mystery here that I do not understand and cannot fully harmonize or explain with my finite mind. But God's sovereignty over everything is really real. And our ability to freely choose things is really real. God addresses us with things to do, and we are given the freedom to do them or not. And he is in control.
So it is with someone examining Christianity. They really need help to see the evidence, to believe the evidence. But the believing and trusting is given to them as a choice. I do not know how all this will reconcile in the end.
Though I must affirm - and gladly affirm - faith as a gift, I think the nature of God's love is such that he will not control and manipulate his creatures. I offer this only as a possibility, but I think this freedom-giving love is also part of what keeps God from compelling our belief outright. He gives us evidence that may be interpreted either way. I am a very intellectually fulfilled Christian. By now I have seen enough evidence of God's reality that I could not be an intellectually fulfilled atheist even if I tried. For me, it would be like trying to pass through the eye of a needle. But there are also plenty of intellectually fulfilled atheists. God woos us but does not drag us away to heaven. Nor does he drag us to hell. I think, therefore, that if you are really seeking him with an open heart, you will find him. And your seeking with an open heart will be seen to have been a gift in the end.
Romans indicates that everyone knows God, but that we have suppressed our knowledge of God by our own unrighteousness. Coming to faith in God will probably not come calmly at the end of a syllogism - it might - but it will likely strike in an unsuspecting moment with a bubbling up of, "Of course." This may involve a lot of intellectual wrestling. Or it may involve none at all.
Dear friends, consider this post a prologue to further and more specific apologetic entries. This is more like a lengthy airing out of epistemological preliminaries. I have already catalogued a quick and basic list of reasons why I believe in God. I certainly will also be coming up with a list of reasons why I believe the Bible is reliable. For the sake of others, I will move my argument beyond the circle above.
Perhaps this has all just been a long personal reminder for myself that I ought not to forget God among all the thorns and rabbit trails of finding reasons for him. And that I ought to talk to him more than I talk about him.
As always, Soli Deo gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment