Why Ask "Why Believe"?

Introduction:

The purpose of this series is to help you begin to answer questions for yourself, and for other people, about the Christian faith - especially objections to the Christian faith. This is a big, complicated topic, so we are going to break it down into little pieces to help digest it more easily. Each section will be a little, semi-independent piece, but keep in mind that the pieces connect and fit together, so they will build on one another. As we move along we will sometimes try to put all the pieces together and see the big package.

When we talk about the Christian faith in the most general way, there are really two big questions to be answered. First: What does it say? (What is the content and meaning of the Christian faith? Call that theology.) Second: Why should anyone think it is true? This is sometimes called "apologetics" which comes from a Greek word meaning, "to make your case" - perhaps in court or something like that. We are going to be working on that second question in this series.

But before we dive into some questions and answers about the Christian faith, it is worth asking, "Why ask ‘Why believe?’"? Why does "why" matter for the Christian faith? Can there be reasons for faith, or is it something that just can’t have reasons? This is the topic for this first study.

If It’s Reasonable, Can It Still Be Faith? What makes faith what it is? There is a recent line of thought that locates faith in a lack of evidence and uncertainty. Let’s look at that view.

Faith is "belivin’ what you know ain’t so." That old saying accurately describes what most people, non-Christians and many Christians alike, mean today when they talk about "faith."

For example, a recent critical thinking text says of faith

"To believe something on faith is to believe it in spite of, or even because of, the fact that we have insufficient evidence for it. . . In the case of faith, the gap between belief and evidence is filled by an act of the will — we choose to believe something even though that belief isn’t warranted by the evidence. . . The problem with the appeal to faith is that it is unenlightening; it may tell us something about the person making the appeal, but it tells us nothing about the proposition in question."

This sort of thing filters down from textbooks to starlets. Here is a very interesting statement that reflects this whole view. It is from an interview with Amber Tamblin, who plays "Joan" in the TV serives, "Joan of Arcadia" - -

"One of my good friends is Christian, goes to church every Sunday, very religious. I’m fine with that and I will never judge her. And one of my other friends could not believe in God if he came down and tapped her on the shoulder. She’s a biologist—a student at UCLA—and I don’t judge her either, because I really believe that God is a personal opinion, and only that.

It’s a matter of how you use God in your own life and I don’t think it’s anything really beyond that. And that’s where the core strength comes from.

So I never judge anybody for their personal beliefs. I could never say that one religion is wrong. I could never say that this person’s God is wrong, I could never say that someone is wrong because they don’t believe in God."

You also find this view in books intended for courses in Christian seminaries states. One such text says:

"Faith is different from reason. Faith implies that there is an element that is not totally certain. . . If faith were totally reasonable, it would no longer be faith."

You find this view expressed by college and university students. As one, who said she was a Christian, wrote in a campus newspaper:

"For part of March and April of every year, I honor a God who I believe came to Earth in the form of a man and rose from the dead. Stated like that, some people might say that belief was a little, well, weird. However, most Christians will tell you it’s simply a matter of faith."

You find it in the premier evangelical magazine ChristianityToday where one writer lamented any approach that "takes the risk out of faith and the mystery out of revelation."5

This view has been so common for so long that it has shaped the English language. In most dictionaries, one definition often given for "faith" is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

Where did we get this idea that "faith" requires that we be at least a little irrational, unknowing, and somehow steeped in "risk" that we just might be wrong? One big influence in this direction was the nineteenth century Danish writer Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard said things like this about the Christian faith (Concluding Unscientific Postscript):

"For the absurd is the object of faith, and the only object that can be believed." (p. 189)

In perhaps his most memorable statement, Kierkegaard spoke of faith as "the leap" by which he meant "the qualitative transition from non-belief to belief." (p. 15) To be genuine, said he, this "leap" must be something we make not because there is any good reason for it. It must be made because of "passion", that is, just because we want to do it.

Unfortunately, this new, faulty course came to be very influential in European theology in the early twentieth century, and eventually filtered out to most of modern Christianity of all stripes. Even those who would probably not be willing to go all the way with Kierkegaard still retain the essence of his view. As one evangelical writer put it, "My faith in Jesus Christ can best be described as going beyond (not against) the given evidence on the basis of personal commitment."6 The same writer says elsewhere that "The fact that we are not completely rational in the adoption of our faith is not necessarily bad."7

Why is this view of faith so common?

If faith is primarily an act of the will - we just decide to believe for no good reasons - then it can remain something completely private and beyond debate.

This view has payoffs for almost everyone.

For the unbeliever, the payoff is that you can tolerate all those believers and not worry about what they just "believe" because beliefs are irrational anyway.

For the believer, the payoff is that you never need to defend your faith rationally.

For our politically correct society at large, the payoff is that if beliefs are unreasonable, one belief is just as good as another, or as good as no belief at all. About the most people hope for with beliefs is that they will be sincerely held. No evaluation beyond that is possible, nor is it considered polite. You have your beliefs, I have mine, the more the merrier, end of story. This is especially welcome in a world where a lot of troubles seem to stem from one particular religion.

Is Faith Even a Little Bit Irrational?

Could there be reasons - even compelling reasons - to have faith?

The Christian faith includes evidence for its claims. It most certainly does involve some amazing claims, but it also includes some amazing evidence. It is very unfortunate that many, including many Christians, have succumbed to the idea that Christian faith at some point involves a kind of "leap" where one leaves behind logic, reason, and evidence. This is not the case at all.

While we are not yet presenting reasons for anything, I want you to notice that the historic Christian faith is chock-full of reasons, of "whys."

Acts 1:1-3

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God." (NAS)

Mark 2:10-12 - "But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-- He said to the paralytic — "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this." (NAS)

Just before this, Jesus had pronounced a man’s sins forgiven. Some of those listening objected, and their objection was completely logical, even though one of their premises was faulty. They reasoned something like this: Only God can forgive sins, so Jesus should not be claiming to forgive sins unless He is God, which He is not. Here we see Jesus’ typical response to this kind of questioning — he performed an act intended to back up His claim to be God.

Where is the room for, even the possibility of, reasonable doubt when Elijah made the case at Mt. Carmel that the Lord is God? What kind of "leap" was called for there? After Elijah made his demonstration - and because of that demonstration - scripture records: "When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD-he is God! The LORD-he is God!" (1 Kings 18:39, NIV)

Two sides to the coin of faith

Assent - "I agree that these statements are true." You can identify this aspect of faith in the Bible when you see the phrase "believe that . . ." Here are some examples:

God gave Moses some signs he could perform to convince the Israelites that God had sent Moses. God said of these signs, "This is so that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has appeared to you." (Ex. 4:5)

Jesus once said to some of the Pharisees, "if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

"We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him." (I Thess. 4:14)

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Heb. 11:6)

Trust - Trust is our willingness to place ourselves in the hands of someone - in this case, God. It is often said that we trust a person, not facts, or a book, or anything like that. However, in the case of God, just as in the case of people, we trust a person because of the things we know about that person. A few examples of this are:

"And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant." (Ex. 14:31)

So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own? (Luke 16:11) While this passage isn’t about God, it is the same word that is often used elsewhere of faith in God, and it illustrates very well the point. While you might "believe that" I am a nice guy who wouldn’t steal your money, you only trust me if you are willing to let me take your money to the bank for you, so to speak!

It is possible for people to "balk" even at the best evidence. In fact, this is done all the time. But if there are good "whys" for the Christian faith, in what sense can placing our trust in the God described in scripture be irrational, or a "leap" or "just a matter of faith"?

Some people actually worry that the evidence for the Christian faith could be too strong. One Christian writer says, "I would question whether God, if he exists, would want to make his reality that obvious."8 This same writer expresses grave concern that if God made His presence extremely clear to people, they might be afraid not to believe in Him. As he states this, "There is good reason to think, then, that God would give people ‘room’ to reject him, because he only wants people to believe in him who are willing to believe in him."9

When Paul the Apostle presented the Christian faith, the Book of Acts records the fact that He "reasoned" with people. For example, Acts 17:2-4, "And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded . . ." (NAS) – there is something worth noting here. If a person is unwilling to be reasoned with, that person will be very unlikely to accept the Christian faith. It’s just another case of leading the horse to water . . . and you know the rest.

When the Apostles presented the Christian faith, they reasoned, explained, and gave evidence to show the truth of that faith. It did not retreat into some supposed irrationality of the faith as an excuse to present the Christian faith as merely a "He touched me" experience.

Conclusion: We ask "why" of the Christian faith because we are invited by the very nature of that faith to ask. Asking why the Christian faith is true is encouraged by the very shape of that faith. The mark of faith is NOT uncertainty. Faith is faith because it is based on testimony. It can be a way of knowing, and being very reasonably sure, about things we cannot see for ourselves. But as we have seen, this doesn’t even make it unusual - we do this all the time in life. But the question we are asking, in its broadest form, is "Is it true."