I suppose everything I am going to say has been said, but truth need not be novel to be important. This is the beginning of a series posts on why I'm Christian--still. My motivation for setting these words down, and for the soul-searching that preceded this exercise, was a series of conversations with good friends—old and new—about why they don’t believe the Christian story.
I like to think I’d rather be atheist and right, or agnostic and safe, than Christian and wrong… that no amount of inconvenience is worse than holding onto an erroneous belief. And part of me wouldn’t mind being converted to some other way of thinking at this point in my life... which is to say I don't think my Christianity is the product of inertia.
Many friends that don’t believe the Christian story have said basically the same thing: the Gospels are myths, written so long after the fact that the telephone game got out of hand and ended up producing a distorted Homerian account.
I wouldn’t mind believing that and getting on with it. But before I toss in the towel, a fair trial must be given to these accounts, given their tremendous endurance. The myth theory was prominent in the late 19th century when Academia dated the New Testament documents to the 3rd and 4th centuries. But the last hundred years of research has forced even skeptic scholars to agree with tradition—that they were all written by the mid 2nd century at the latest, and more than likely within one lifetime after Jesus' death. This has forced skeptics to adopt a range of rather wild explanations for why the witnesses claimed what they did.
The first in this series of posts will therefore address how reliable the early accounts of Jesus are, according to the best scholarly research. The main reason I’m Christian is the historical one: 2000 years ago in Palestine, a group of eyewitnesses claimed Jesus rose from the dead, fulfilling his own prophesies, and the witnesses died torturous deaths to spread that message. I’ll address how we know that and the alternative theories about the Resurrection account.
The next post will be on the second reason I believe: the consistency of the Christian worldview. Scientific theories win acceptance because they synthesize a the largest amount of data into a coherent whole. The ‘theory of the universe’ proposed by Christianity is so mind-blowingly beautiful that it begs acceptance, much like Einstein's theory of relativity, or the theory of gravity. At the same time, it leaves a lot to mystery, and is not closed in on itself. Its claims are awesome but they point towards the infinite, which is itself beautiful, and even more credible for that.
The third reason I’m still Christian, and the topic of the third post, is the existence of miracles, or 'highly unlikely coincidences'—call them what you will—particularly at Lourdes, in the Shroud of Turin, and in the Virgin of Guadalupe, which seem to be divine encouragements intended to keep our faith alive throughout the centuries.
Of course, there are also autobiographical incidents that reinforce my faith, but these I won’t discuss, since they are less relevant to skeptics. I nonetheless make this brief reference to them, since without a personal encounter with God, the Christian conclusion that God cares for us personally would be empty… and I have not found that to be the case. Indeed, the most interesting part of being a Christian is the personal relationship with the Creator it makes possible. But that is posterior to the discussion at hand.
I trust my friends believe I am loyal first and foremost to the truth, hope for open discussion and debate, and that wherever we all may end up, I hope we end up there together.
And, yes, I'm arguing that Christianity is the "there" we all seek.
I like to think I’d rather be atheist and right, or agnostic and safe, than Christian and wrong… that no amount of inconvenience is worse than holding onto an erroneous belief. And part of me wouldn’t mind being converted to some other way of thinking at this point in my life... which is to say I don't think my Christianity is the product of inertia.
Many friends that don’t believe the Christian story have said basically the same thing: the Gospels are myths, written so long after the fact that the telephone game got out of hand and ended up producing a distorted Homerian account.
I wouldn’t mind believing that and getting on with it. But before I toss in the towel, a fair trial must be given to these accounts, given their tremendous endurance. The myth theory was prominent in the late 19th century when Academia dated the New Testament documents to the 3rd and 4th centuries. But the last hundred years of research has forced even skeptic scholars to agree with tradition—that they were all written by the mid 2nd century at the latest, and more than likely within one lifetime after Jesus' death. This has forced skeptics to adopt a range of rather wild explanations for why the witnesses claimed what they did.
The first in this series of posts will therefore address how reliable the early accounts of Jesus are, according to the best scholarly research. The main reason I’m Christian is the historical one: 2000 years ago in Palestine, a group of eyewitnesses claimed Jesus rose from the dead, fulfilling his own prophesies, and the witnesses died torturous deaths to spread that message. I’ll address how we know that and the alternative theories about the Resurrection account.
The next post will be on the second reason I believe: the consistency of the Christian worldview. Scientific theories win acceptance because they synthesize a the largest amount of data into a coherent whole. The ‘theory of the universe’ proposed by Christianity is so mind-blowingly beautiful that it begs acceptance, much like Einstein's theory of relativity, or the theory of gravity. At the same time, it leaves a lot to mystery, and is not closed in on itself. Its claims are awesome but they point towards the infinite, which is itself beautiful, and even more credible for that.
The third reason I’m still Christian, and the topic of the third post, is the existence of miracles, or 'highly unlikely coincidences'—call them what you will—particularly at Lourdes, in the Shroud of Turin, and in the Virgin of Guadalupe, which seem to be divine encouragements intended to keep our faith alive throughout the centuries.
Of course, there are also autobiographical incidents that reinforce my faith, but these I won’t discuss, since they are less relevant to skeptics. I nonetheless make this brief reference to them, since without a personal encounter with God, the Christian conclusion that God cares for us personally would be empty… and I have not found that to be the case. Indeed, the most interesting part of being a Christian is the personal relationship with the Creator it makes possible. But that is posterior to the discussion at hand.
I trust my friends believe I am loyal first and foremost to the truth, hope for open discussion and debate, and that wherever we all may end up, I hope we end up there together.
And, yes, I'm arguing that Christianity is the "there" we all seek.
2 comments:
"the truth need not be novel to be important"
hear, hear, brother! i'll go on record as one who no longer believes the christian story AND shares your desires for clarity and truth. without any against-ness, i'm ready to learn from you!
Great first post Matt!
Post a Comment