Jacob Stump: "On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith"
Jacob Stump, frequent commenter here, wrote "On the Importance of
Evidence for an Emerging Faith" for the Open Source Theology website.
We know from Jacob's contributions here that he takes a "post-structuralist"
position regarding knowledge and truth, which is not far from what is commonly
called a postmodern position. So I was interested to see how he would handle
this topic.
His prime example of a Christian evidentialist is
Josh McDowell, with whom I've worked, and who has influenced me considerably.
Josh is well known as a speaker and author on historical evidences for the
Christian faith. Not everybody realizes that since publication of his book
Evidence That Demands a
Verdict in the early 70s, Josh has shifted from
a purely evidential approach toward Christianity toward one that also heavily
emphasizes relationship. He has not backed away from the conclusions of his
historical research, and it would be wrong to say he did not have a relational
approach previously. It was there. But in his more recent writings he has argued
as much for building genuine relationships as he has for the apologetics for
which he's known. This is Biblical: the good news of Jesus Christ is about
restoring a broken relationship with God, and reflecting the same among each
other.
I can clearly remember Josh saying, 32 years ago when I first heard him speak, "My heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects!" I had tried Christianity and found it frustrating. When I first spent time with men my age who were truly following Christ, I could tell it was giving them genuine joy, which intrigued me considerably. They explained to me that trying Christianity wasn't the way to experience that joy. Having a personal relationship with Christ, through faith in him, was the way. Having rejected what I thought was Christianity, though, I had come to doubt that there was enough truth there to stand on. My friends had me read Josh's Evidence, which showed me that Christianity is indeed built on solid truth grounds after all.
Was it Josh's argumentation that convinced me to follow Christ? I can't say for certain. My friends' lives had a lot to do with it too. Biblically, I know now that God's Holy Spirit was turning my heart toward him. Here's what Evidence did, though: it gave me a strong basis for believing that the Bible was true. It gave me assurance that I didn't have to throw my brains away to be a Christian. It gave me reasons for confidence that the Christian faith was not only good, it was also true.
Some say the historical evidences for Christ are not 100% compelling. I recognize that. To me, it looks very strongly as though the teachings of the Bible are the best explanation not just of history, but of all of life. But I realize there will always be alternative ways to interpret the facts. There are other factors operating in belief. anyway; I've never seen anyone come to Christ who didn't recognize their personal need for him, for one thing. Faith is not mere intellectual assent, it's also agreement of the will.
There are also those who say the historical evidences are hardly worthy of consideration, or that it's all been discredited. They're wrong. The textual evidence for the Bible is extremely strong, many orders of magnitude higher than for any document of that time of history. Archeological evidence consistently supports Scripture. Secular scholars of the period are moving toward agreement that the Bible records even some of the events surrounding Jesus death accurately, and that the disciples experienced appearances from Christ afterward (some would understand them as hallucinations or just "visions," not the real risen Christ). The course of world history was clearly changed by Jesus Christ and his followers.
The Biblical record stands on firm historical ground. I can't cover all that ground again here, and even if I could, that's not my purpose right now. My major point this time has to do not with the strength of the evidences, but with Jacob's topic, which is the role that evidences play in regard to belief in Christ. To explore that now, let's suppose we had a situation where any sane mind would have to reject that in which our hearts would want to rejoice. What if Jesus was a mere wisp, a shadow of history? What if archeology contradicted major aspects of the Bible? What if the early versions of Jesus' life were riddled with major contradictions? What if the movement in his name had not arisen until hundreds of years later? How could our minds not reject that, and how could our hearts then rejoice in it? But such rejection is not necessary; the evidences accord with the claims.
That's my view. What role does Jacob assign to evidences? He shares a story of three baseball umpires: one who believes he can see and interpret reality as it actually is, one who knows his interpretations are limited by his own perspective, and one who makes reality by the way he interprets it: "There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothing’ until I call ’em."
Jacob says the first two umpires view knowledge in approximately the same way McDowell does. They're trying to get at what reality is, and they hope they can do that, at least in part. Jacob prefers the third ump:*
"It isn’t a matter of his statements being accurate or corresponding to the evidence. Accurate correspondence isn’t even a possibility—for this ump holds that we shall never be able to step outside of our descriptions of the evidence to check our descriptions for their accuracy against some un-described objectivity. We will never fulfill the Platonic quest to get behind appearance to the Intrinsic Nature of Reality. No. What is important for this umpire is how we make sense of what we saw. Something happened. But from this ump’s view, WHAT happened is inseparable from HOW we come to know that it happened. Or said differently, this umpire saw something and then spoke up about it to those around him. And by speaking about what he saw, he gave it meaning and significance to those around him. So, for this umpire, the evidence is secondary compared to what it means and what it means is a matter of people calling it like they see it, telling stories and witnessing about it."
He goes on,
"That is, an emerging faith in Jesus does not stake its credibility and intellectual validity on material evidence."
And evidence has very limited roles:
"One role is to continue using evidence as a mode of apology for post-evangelicals trying to relate to more modern-minded folks. But to be clear, using evidence in this manner should be seen as a missiological strategy, tool or resource."
and
"A second role for evidence in an emerging faith in Jesus is to lovingly, creatively and richly interweave a disciplined reading of the Bible with our everyday lives such that the light of our way bears genuine fruit toward the kingdom of God. As Jesus said, 'let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven' (Matt 5:16)."
The first of these seems a bit like a sop to the unenlightened. Emerging Christians know that evidence isn't relevant, but since these benighted moderns call for it, we should give it to them. (How honest is that?) The second emphasizes our good works as a kind of evidence that will draw people toward Christ. It's heading straight toward a contradiction, of course. It assumes that there's an actual reality--our good works--that others will see accurately for what they are. But recall he said, "Accurate correspondence isn’t even a possibility—for ... we shall never be able to step outside of our descriptions of the evidence to check our descriptions for their accuracy against some un-described objectivity." Won't the same problem afflict others who "see" our good works? What good are they as evidence if nobody can see them for what they are?
In short, it doesn't matter whether there are good historical reasons to accept that the Bible speaks truth. It only matters, says Jacob, in case there's a need to throw some related ideas as a bone to modern types who falsely believe there's an objective reality we can know (at least partly). The only evidence Jacob actually seems to believe in is of a sort that he contradicts in the same article.
But that doesn't much bother Jacob. He is not worried about his heart rejoicing in what his mind rejects, for he does not ask his mind to decide whether there's a reality there. He believes that's out of his mind's reach.
I would suggest to Jacob that as he "lovingly, creatively and richly interweave[s] a disciplined reading of the Bible with [his] everyday [life]," he take note of how often the Bible points to events in history, and to how important it is that they actually happened and are knowable. 1 Corinthians 15 is probably the most crucial of these passages. I would ask him whether his skepticism about knowing reality is necessary or even tenable for someone who believes there is a God who created humans in his image, and who desires to communicate to us regarding himself and reality. I would also urge him to consider, "What if it none of the Biblically recorded events happened? Would you still believe it?"
I wouldn't. I'm glad I don't have to try. My heart, like Josh McDowell's, could never rejoice in what my mind rejects. After 30+ years of study, my heart and my mind remain in strong agreement.
Finally--to say one has evidence for these things is not to say one has no more questions (HT Keith Plummer for that). I hope no one gets that confused. I'm posting something else about that at the same this morning, which I've been working on for a few days.
*It's time to kill the umpire analogy anyway, but I'll treat that separately.
I can clearly remember Josh saying, 32 years ago when I first heard him speak, "My heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects!" I had tried Christianity and found it frustrating. When I first spent time with men my age who were truly following Christ, I could tell it was giving them genuine joy, which intrigued me considerably. They explained to me that trying Christianity wasn't the way to experience that joy. Having a personal relationship with Christ, through faith in him, was the way. Having rejected what I thought was Christianity, though, I had come to doubt that there was enough truth there to stand on. My friends had me read Josh's Evidence, which showed me that Christianity is indeed built on solid truth grounds after all.
Was it Josh's argumentation that convinced me to follow Christ? I can't say for certain. My friends' lives had a lot to do with it too. Biblically, I know now that God's Holy Spirit was turning my heart toward him. Here's what Evidence did, though: it gave me a strong basis for believing that the Bible was true. It gave me assurance that I didn't have to throw my brains away to be a Christian. It gave me reasons for confidence that the Christian faith was not only good, it was also true.
Some say the historical evidences for Christ are not 100% compelling. I recognize that. To me, it looks very strongly as though the teachings of the Bible are the best explanation not just of history, but of all of life. But I realize there will always be alternative ways to interpret the facts. There are other factors operating in belief. anyway; I've never seen anyone come to Christ who didn't recognize their personal need for him, for one thing. Faith is not mere intellectual assent, it's also agreement of the will.
There are also those who say the historical evidences are hardly worthy of consideration, or that it's all been discredited. They're wrong. The textual evidence for the Bible is extremely strong, many orders of magnitude higher than for any document of that time of history. Archeological evidence consistently supports Scripture. Secular scholars of the period are moving toward agreement that the Bible records even some of the events surrounding Jesus death accurately, and that the disciples experienced appearances from Christ afterward (some would understand them as hallucinations or just "visions," not the real risen Christ). The course of world history was clearly changed by Jesus Christ and his followers.
The Biblical record stands on firm historical ground. I can't cover all that ground again here, and even if I could, that's not my purpose right now. My major point this time has to do not with the strength of the evidences, but with Jacob's topic, which is the role that evidences play in regard to belief in Christ. To explore that now, let's suppose we had a situation where any sane mind would have to reject that in which our hearts would want to rejoice. What if Jesus was a mere wisp, a shadow of history? What if archeology contradicted major aspects of the Bible? What if the early versions of Jesus' life were riddled with major contradictions? What if the movement in his name had not arisen until hundreds of years later? How could our minds not reject that, and how could our hearts then rejoice in it? But such rejection is not necessary; the evidences accord with the claims.
That's my view. What role does Jacob assign to evidences? He shares a story of three baseball umpires: one who believes he can see and interpret reality as it actually is, one who knows his interpretations are limited by his own perspective, and one who makes reality by the way he interprets it: "There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothing’ until I call ’em."
Jacob says the first two umpires view knowledge in approximately the same way McDowell does. They're trying to get at what reality is, and they hope they can do that, at least in part. Jacob prefers the third ump:*
"It isn’t a matter of his statements being accurate or corresponding to the evidence. Accurate correspondence isn’t even a possibility—for this ump holds that we shall never be able to step outside of our descriptions of the evidence to check our descriptions for their accuracy against some un-described objectivity. We will never fulfill the Platonic quest to get behind appearance to the Intrinsic Nature of Reality. No. What is important for this umpire is how we make sense of what we saw. Something happened. But from this ump’s view, WHAT happened is inseparable from HOW we come to know that it happened. Or said differently, this umpire saw something and then spoke up about it to those around him. And by speaking about what he saw, he gave it meaning and significance to those around him. So, for this umpire, the evidence is secondary compared to what it means and what it means is a matter of people calling it like they see it, telling stories and witnessing about it."
He goes on,
"That is, an emerging faith in Jesus does not stake its credibility and intellectual validity on material evidence."
And evidence has very limited roles:
"One role is to continue using evidence as a mode of apology for post-evangelicals trying to relate to more modern-minded folks. But to be clear, using evidence in this manner should be seen as a missiological strategy, tool or resource."
and
"A second role for evidence in an emerging faith in Jesus is to lovingly, creatively and richly interweave a disciplined reading of the Bible with our everyday lives such that the light of our way bears genuine fruit toward the kingdom of God. As Jesus said, 'let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven' (Matt 5:16)."
The first of these seems a bit like a sop to the unenlightened. Emerging Christians know that evidence isn't relevant, but since these benighted moderns call for it, we should give it to them. (How honest is that?) The second emphasizes our good works as a kind of evidence that will draw people toward Christ. It's heading straight toward a contradiction, of course. It assumes that there's an actual reality--our good works--that others will see accurately for what they are. But recall he said, "Accurate correspondence isn’t even a possibility—for ... we shall never be able to step outside of our descriptions of the evidence to check our descriptions for their accuracy against some un-described objectivity." Won't the same problem afflict others who "see" our good works? What good are they as evidence if nobody can see them for what they are?
In short, it doesn't matter whether there are good historical reasons to accept that the Bible speaks truth. It only matters, says Jacob, in case there's a need to throw some related ideas as a bone to modern types who falsely believe there's an objective reality we can know (at least partly). The only evidence Jacob actually seems to believe in is of a sort that he contradicts in the same article.
But that doesn't much bother Jacob. He is not worried about his heart rejoicing in what his mind rejects, for he does not ask his mind to decide whether there's a reality there. He believes that's out of his mind's reach.
I would suggest to Jacob that as he "lovingly, creatively and richly interweave[s] a disciplined reading of the Bible with [his] everyday [life]," he take note of how often the Bible points to events in history, and to how important it is that they actually happened and are knowable. 1 Corinthians 15 is probably the most crucial of these passages. I would ask him whether his skepticism about knowing reality is necessary or even tenable for someone who believes there is a God who created humans in his image, and who desires to communicate to us regarding himself and reality. I would also urge him to consider, "What if it none of the Biblically recorded events happened? Would you still believe it?"
I wouldn't. I'm glad I don't have to try. My heart, like Josh McDowell's, could never rejoice in what my mind rejects. After 30+ years of study, my heart and my mind remain in strong agreement.
Finally--to say one has evidence for these things is not to say one has no more questions (HT Keith Plummer for that). I hope no one gets that confused. I'm posting something else about that at the same this morning, which I've been working on for a few days.
*It's time to kill the umpire analogy anyway, but I'll treat that separately.
Posted: Mon - September 3, 2007 at 08:55 AM |
Quick Links
Categories
"Do Christians believe we hold the truth? No, it holds us; we submit to it and to the One who gives it. We seek the truth to know it and follow it, that it may grip us tighter yet."
Personal Profile
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Archives
Knowing God
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:05 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:05 PM
