Questions

I came across a blog entry while I was wasting a little time on the internet. It was written by a man who claimed to be a Christian, but was beginning to ask some serious questions about it. He listed his “top ten” issues, and he insinuated that he would soon stop being such a “literalist” because from that perspective, his problems were intractable.

I fall into the “literalist” category, I think. So, I should have answers to his questions. I feel confident that I do, for the most part. I also strongly suspect that he wouldn’t be interested in them.

In my experience, the objections lodged by most “ordinary folks” tell us more about them than about Christianity. It’s unlikely that a randomly encountered person would claim that they could never be a Christian because of the unresolvable difficulty of God being both immanent and transcendent. On the other hand, it would be completely unsurprising to hear someone say that they could never believe in a God who says that it’s wrong for gay people to be together. In other words, most people nowadays wouldn’t object to Christianity on the basis of counterevidence or internal inconsistencies, but because they are unwilling to let go of their own values and assumptions. These are left unstated, but they are very near the surface of the questions they ask.

The blogger said something else that i’ve heard repeated a lot, lately. The “new atheists” have been making a lot of hay by circularly defining terms. The best/worst example I can think of is faith. According to them, faith is by definition belief without or contrary to evidence. (That’s a fine definition for everyday conversation, I guess, but it’s not how I and a lot of other Christians define it for technical purposes. It’s the technical definition that matters, here.) This definition of faith has become a pair of darkly tented lenses through which religion is viewed. It’s taken on almost mythic status. What I’m talking about in particular is the story I see repeated over and over that “I grew up Christian. Questioning was discouraged. Now, thank Science, I’ve gotten over that.” It’s a story that makes complete sense if religious faith is the benighted, dogmatic thing that the new atheists make it out to be. But without directly accusing anyone of dishonesty (if I can avoid it), I am skeptical that it’s a very accurate representation. I suspect, rather, that most people who thusly recall their early years are imposing an ill-fitting interpretative grid on what really happened in order to elevate what they currently believe. They are, in other words, giving a tent revival style testimonial.

I did hear once of a church that frowned on questions. Some friends of friends in Vernon belonged briefly to a church that encouraged them to disown their son for being too persistently skeptical. So, I’m not saying it never happens. I am saying that I think it’s a very small exception to the rule that pastors are tickled pink by questions. I mean, they go to seminary, learn the original languages, read Schleiermacher, and so on, then they pastor a church where getting people to respond to elementary yes/no questions about Jesus is like pulling teeth. I think a lot of them are probably frothing at the mouth to talk to someone who is really interested.

Anyway, I don’t really have much of a point, here, I guess. I’m just pigeonholing roughly 94% of what I see passionately but not very thoughtfully proclaimed on the interwebs.