Why We Need Jesus
Several years ago, I had the privilege of sharing a couple days with noted philosopher Richard Rorty. He repeated his claim that religion is a conversation stopper in public arguments, since it rests on private opinion. I asked him if shifting from philosophical and moral claims to a historical one—namely, that Jesus rose from the dead—would make a difference. After hearing me sketch that claim, he replied, "Yes, aside from the merit of the case itself, that would place Christian faith out in the open, exposed to public criticism."
"And," I interrupted, "public faith."
"Yes, of course," he conceded. "Public arguments of any kind can go either way," he added. "But that's not the kind of argument I often hear." Rorty didn't profess faith in Christ after our conversation. In fact, he argued that "truth" is a social construction. But he admitted that staking Christian discourse on historical claims was different from basing it on private sentiments.
We live in a world that assumes reason is unbiased, when in fact our reason itself is enslaved to naturalism: a denial of the world's dependence on God for its creation and preservation, much less redemption. Any valid argument or evidence that suggests otherwise must have a naturalistic explanation, even if that explanation is the least reasonable. To be a rational person is to be a practical atheist, whatever spiritual hobbies one takes up on the weekends. Reason rests on public facts; faith, on private values. When it comes to faith, you can believe whatever you want, as long as you don't think it's true for everyone else. You can have faith in whatever makes you happy, as long as you don't presume to evaluate my faith. After all, it's mine: deeply personal and not open to public inspection. And reducing the gospel to "Jesus in my heart" is going to fit in perfectly on the island of subjective individualism to which our age has relegated faith.
This leaves us paralyzed, unable to understand the faith as more than childish whim, personal therapy, or a leap in the dark. We feel compelled to make faith adhere to naturalism, which our culture calls reason. We may downplay the biblical miracles, or describe prayer as "practicing silence," or think of the kingdom of God primarily as a manifesto for social reform and of Jesus as a great teacher. Reason opens its gate to mundane good advice, not to miraculous good news; deeds are authorized, but creeds are dangerous. The pressure to conform our faith to the rules of naturalism is powerful.
And if we share the gospel with others, we're accused of "proselytizing," which is code for pushing private beliefs on others. Thus, for many, evangelism is antiquated, replaced by good works that show the love of Jesus. No doubt we should show the love of Jesus in deed. But if Paul is right, people will come to know Christ only through our public testimony—the one thing our culture precludes, except when the likeminded meet as a voluntary association (Rom. 10).
The question for Christians, and anyone seeking to know God, is: On what basis can we know and trust God? And how can we trust that we know God, and have a knowledge that emboldens us to speak the gospel in our culture and live in a way that befits it?
A Fractured and Beautiful Faith
Streaming This Weekend, May 24, 2013
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 16 comments
See all comments
Wendy
I have to wonder why many of you who claim to be naturalists find yourself commenting about the historicity of the Christian faith. What exactly does that make you now? Missionaries to us silly resurrection believers? It seems to me if there was any advantage to atheism is that one could leave all the superstition behind. If naturalism is to be embraced at all, it seems quite unnatural to argue against religion. All one should do is ignore all forms of faith and live life as you see fit. I've never understood this compulsion in the last decade for atheists to rail against Christianity with such missionary zeal - especially when Protestant Liberalism and the Christian Right were already doing an adequate job of marginalizing the historic Christian faith. Why draw attention to a world view that you see as a dead end? Are you looking for converts to your better way - the one you yourselves do not fully embrace? Or maybe, just maybe the Apostle Paul has a point in Rom. 1?
Joy
I can't imagine a book two-to-four thousand years old being relevant to the modern society in which I live, but it is! The nature of man and the nature of God have not changed. The more I read and study the Bible, the more I see myself, warts and all. I used to think I could be a better person if someone would just set me an example, especially among my friends and relatives. I didn't see much evidence in the lives of people who professed to be believers in Jesus. And no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get it right, either. I realized that, if God is who he claims to be, I am under his judgment. If he doesn't exist, I have no real reason to exist, either. I might as well be dead now as later. I thank my God daily that I chose to believe in Him and in Jesus, whom he sent, and to yield to him, even though it didn't seem to make any earthly sense. He has not failed me in the fifty short years I have entrusted to him.
Katie
E Harris, a naturalist will also change his beliefs according to new discoveries, even if they contradict what he formerly knew. The point of naturalism is not to hold onto specific "scientific dogma." It's to admit that there is a lot we don't know, but we fill in the gaps wherever possible in a most feasible effort of understanding. It doesn't directly result in us worshiping the earth or ourselves. We might not know how the earth began or even how exactly it might have evolved, but we work with materials to get as close an understanding as possible. We simply don't choose to fill in the holes with a guy who appeared as a blip in history, whose story even evolves through the chronology of the four gospel messagess. A God who relies on 30 years on earth and single-language text to prove himself to future generations is providing a pretty weak argument. I guess that's why Jesus was hoping the end was near. Too bad he was wrong.