To pull my thoughts back to the original direction I had in mind, when I wrote my response to the claim Dale quoted:
Jesus tells us differently.
Jesus blessed those of us who believe without seeing and experiencing him. For those like me, the “experience” we have of God is imperceptable and results in true faith in Jesus. That is all there is to report. We have faith.
That’s it.
(I see Lewis does not support me as I had thought. Ah well. I will not rely on him for back up in this case. )
Then again, backup is not needed.
To stipulate that “the grounds of true belief (or whatever kind is not true) in God is the experience of God” is overreach. And condemning of those of us with true belief who came by it in entirely undramatic ways.
Do we love him? Then we will follow his commands. We don’t need to worry wether we had a particular experience.
No, I read it as a blessing that we believe without having him here for us to physically see and touch his scars. Like you said, how that happens can be different, even quite different, from one person to the next.
I have noted that the stories of how someone became a believer varies much.
For someone coming from a broken life or non-Christian background, the conversion experience may be strong and the person remembers the day for the rest of her/his life.
For those coming from homes with believing parents, the ‘conversion’ is often a stepwise growth process where the person may decide to follow Jesus several times during the growth from a small children to an adult. In an environment where ‘conversion experiences’ are important, these persons may decide that one of the decisions is the ‘conversion’ that is expected. If there has been a period of being ‘not so Christian’, the day chosen tends to be the day when he/she ‘came back to Jesus’.
In reality, the day of decision is not an isolated day in the life. It follows after a history of previous life, and it is just a start of a life-long journey. We have to make a decision every day, do I want to follow Jesus?
What really matters is the situation today. Today is everything we have. Yesterday has been lost, tomorrow may come if we live but it is not yet here.
Here’s the actual Lewis quote I had had in mind; it’s from the chapter “The Beginning” from Surprised by Joy:
To accept the Incarnation was a further step in the same direction. It brings God nearer, or near in a new way. And this, I found, was something I had not wanted. But to recognise the ground for my evasion was of course to recognise both its shame and its futility. I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did.
From: Surprised by Joy by C. S. Lewis, from Project Gutenberg Canada
Whatever experience of God Lewis had here, it was imperceptible to him. The result was faith. I think we have good reason to believe that Lewis’s inexperience lead to “true” faith.
Clouser’s original quote was problematic enough, because it makes claims that don’t reflect my own (and others’) experience, or lack of it, which lead to faith in Jesus, or what is or isn’t “self-evident”:
Dales addition – [true] – made it a condemnation of anyone who has faith but not the way some people feel it should come about.
The implication is clear: If one doesn’t experience God in the way described in Clouser’s quote, it isn’t “true” faith. I shouldn’t have to explain to anyone with a basic Sunday school background why this is condemning.
As Knor points out:
No human has the ability to rightly judge if another’s “experience of God” or lack of experience is sufficient for faith to be, much less to be “true” (as opposed to “fake”?).
This is the point.
Jesus backs it up:
Changing the subject or deflecting will not change the point.
Of course, we all have different backgrounds. Someone brought up in the faith, like me, will have a different perspective than someone brought up in the Hindu faith, or a vehement atheist or any point between. There is also the rebellious nature that will refuse to conform to what the perceive as the norm or the expected.
But, there is also the Nature v nurture aspect, whereby there will be a tendency to gravitate towards or away from God and faith.
We are individuals, and as such it would be ludicrous to expect all to conform to one faith structure or belief, or one method of reaching those beliefs.
Experiences do not have to be conversion experiences – I’ve noted before here that I don’t know when I became a Christian. But one would think that we should desire them, even hunger and ask for them. And we are told in multiple places in the OT to remember what God has done, and in the Epistles as well?
What I said does, indeed, apply to what Lewis reports. And I’d be surprised if yours didn’t also. The experience I referred to was the experience of seeing the gospel to be the truth about God. I don’t see how anyone can claim to believe the gospel without experiencing it as truth about God from God. (In fact, “believe” is short for “believe to be true.”
I’ll just add add the aside that some tend to mentally interpret John 20:29 as “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed with no evidence”. However the text actually does not commend believing with no evidence (i.e. “fideism”). Thomas actually had the evidence of the verbal testimony of the other disciples and the women who had seen Jesus resurrected, it’s just that he didn’t believe those witnesses, but insisted on “first-hand material evidence”. Jesus here is commending those who will, in the future, believe in him once he is gone and they can no longer touch him physically, but will have that passed-along testimony of witnesses (if nothing else).
But yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the type of “evidence” that one bases one’s faith on varies from person to person and what is personally convincing for one, may not be so for everyone.
First, the Christian apologetics I have seen are quite poor. They often fail at a basic level of logic and reason. However, I have always thought that atheists are not the audience for apologetics. Rather, the target audience is Christians, and apologetics is meant to make (some) Christians feel that they are justified in their beliefs. When I hear apologetics as an atheist I feel like I am listening to a used car salesman, and a bad one at that.
As you state earlier in the thread, personal dialogue is much better. Just talk to people like they are people. I would also say that Christians should grow more comfortable with theological problems and faith. I certainly don’t fault any religion for questions it doesn’t have quick answers to (e.g. The Problem of Suffering). I actually respect Christians more when they say that they don’t have the answers, but that their faith doesn’t require them. I can respect this because it’s the truth. Nothing is perfect in this world, and I don’t expect perfection from Christian theology. Besides, isn’t there supposed to be some mystery in religion?
As long as they are honest, they can tell it any way they wish. At a base level, I am happy for everyone who finds meaning and purpose in their lives through religion. It just isn’t for me. I can’t make myself believe in something I don’t believe in. Maybe I will convert some day in the future, who knows? Like everyone else, I am just trying to make my way through this life in the most rewarding way I can find, and in a way that enriches the world around me.
I find personal stories much more compelling than bad apologetics. That is for sure. I don’t find the supernatural origin of the change in their lives that compelling, but I also know that I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I am very grateful that people have turned their lives around and found something important and rewarding in their lives.
If I ever write the one I have in mind, I’ll be sure to share a copy with the forum… it will be in Spanish, but I’m sure an English version can be made available
I used to be a part of the Christian Hip Hop world and there is a BIG emphasis on apologetics there. In fact, I have a friend who wrote a book on the subject called Street-Level Apologetics. The common name for this style of apologetics is sometimes called Backpack Apologetics (referring to a hip-hop term for rap fans - backpackers) or Urban Apologetics. I have a lot of experience in dealing with these folks and their love of “battle” debates. It really pairs well with the hip-hop ethos of one-upping each other.
Personally, I HATE IT.
I know way too many atheists to know that all of the arguments that apologetics fans think are stone-cold mic droppers are just rhetorical games or arguments based on the bible which atheists don’t believe in. There is an obsession with trying to make faith logical which, to me, completely defeats the purpose of faith and any rewards that God bestows on someone they consider faithful. It’s all delivered with so much arrogance too. It never feels friendly or inviting.
It’s also interesting that many of the friends I grew up with that were SUPER into apologetics ended up leaving the faith altogether. To me, that says something about the strict arguments that you have to buy into that leave people with a bad taste in their mouths when they realize that you can view the Christian faith in way more ways than apologetics fans would agree with.
I just can’t deal with it. I most recently went to a Christian hip-hop festival with one of these apologetics friends and sat through a lot of seminars that were just so amateurish in their arguments. I honestly couldn’t believe some of the basic stuff I heard from these experts. Stuff that atheists would laugh so hard at, but was seen as the magic ticket to win debates. I cringe so hard when I think about it.
As far as published material, I’m not so sure most of it is bad. The Case for Christ, while not perfect, is not a bad introduction to historical apologetics. There are definitely a bunch of bad apologists, in fact you could say all of us are sinners, which is ironically an apologetic argument in itself.
What I found, was that as imperfect as historical arguments are, at best they are as good as believing what someone else saw. It’s when you take these arguments and put them along side what God is doing in your life, that you arrive at a way of knowing the Bible perfectly describes
Christian apologetics is the practice of presenting reasoned arguments and evidence in defence of the Christian faith. When engaging in apologetics, it’s important to strive for a respectful and inviting approach that fosters meaningful dialogue. Here are some suggestions for making Christian apologetics less obnoxious and more inviting:
Respectful attitude: Approach discussions with a genuine desire to understand the other person’s perspective. Show respect for their beliefs and opinions, even if you disagree with them. Avoid condescension, dismissive language, or personal attacks.
Active listening: Take the time to actively listen to the concerns, doubts, and questions of others. Demonstrate empathy and understanding by acknowledging their viewpoints. This creates a more open and inviting atmosphere for dialogue.
Humility: Recognize that you don’t have all the answers. It’s okay to say, “I don’t know” or “I’ll look into that.” Avoid coming across as arrogant or overly confident. Humility can make your approach more approachable and relatable.
Seek common ground: Find areas of agreement or shared values to build upon. Highlight the values that both sides may hold, such as love, compassion, justice, or moral principles. Focusing on shared concerns can help create a foundation for productive conversation.
Tailor your approach: Understand that different individuals have different needs and perspectives. Avoid using a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, tailor your responses to address the specific concerns or doubts of the person you are engaging with.
Avoid overly technical or complex language: Make an effort to communicate your points in clear and accessible language. Complex jargon or theological terminology can be intimidating and may create a barrier to understanding. Use relatable examples and analogies to help convey your ideas.
Respect personal boundaries: Recognize that not everyone is interested in engaging in apologetic discussions. Be sensitive to the comfort level of the person you are conversing with and avoid pushing them into uncomfortable territory. Sometimes, simply living out your faith in a genuine and compassionate way can be more impactful than engaging in debates.
Build relationships: Apologetics should not be limited to isolated debates. Focus on building relationships with others, demonstrating love and care in your interactions. This can create a foundation of trust and openness that allows for more meaningful conversations about faith.
Remember, the goal of Christian apologetics is not to win arguments but to engage in respectful and meaningful dialogue. By adopting a humble, empathetic, and inviting approach, you can create an atmosphere that encourages genuine exploration and understanding.
While all those points above are good ones, Nobby, they all suffer one thing in common that drags them down: … they are apologetics! Perhaps it could ironically be observed that the only ‘apologetics’ that could be considered good now are those practices that have stopped and dropped being apologetics altogether! Which is a contradictory statement in itself - because it only just drives the ‘apologetic’ objective yet deeper, perhaps momentarily into more effective territory, when in actuality that objective probably just needs to be exorcised - driven out of our hearts - completely.
Because every last one of your points above are good things for us to do as human beings for each other just because they are good for any people to do regardless of their creed - or maybe even more importantly because of it. Christ calls us to be these ways with neighbor, friend, and enemy. And so that is the way we should be. Whether or not, or how well this “sells” anything to others should be left in God’s hands. People around me should each be an opportunity for me to practice all these things in love, not a mission objective in any sense beyond what should be my mission to help improve their lives by listening and attending to their wants and needs.
So does that mean I’m trying to be some sort of conscientious objector to Jesus’ Great Commission? I don’t think so. Because I too should always be ready to be open and honest about my own perspectives and experiences - including the work of Christ in my own life. And in a world where we try to listen to each other (regardless of motive or result from any given individual we encounter), - that is a world where my own voice also may occassionally be welcomed and also attended to by some as part of their human corpus of experience, too - though I don’t fuss about it where it isn’t.
To engage in what has in recent centuries become known as apologetics, seems to me like the practice of always digging up seeds to see if they are beginning to sprout in ways that we approve of, rather than just sowing fruits of the Spirit, watering, and leaving any growth (or whether or not any particular growth is a wheat or tare) - just leaving that all to God.
I think this hits the nail on the head. I worry that on our culture we feel the need to appeal to some other authority, as if our own experience is not enough. I think of the times my parents argue with each other and say things like “you always do X” . Why is it not enough to just say “I feel like X” without claiming to make such an overarching proposition? Is it because we think our personal feelings are somehow less valid and will be taken less seriously?
Of course, our personal feelings are invalid when it comes to scientific or mathematical matters (in most cases), but that doesn’t mean they’re invalid as a whole or not important to us. If someone claimed to have a religious experience reading the Quran or meditating I have no reason to doubt the veracity of such an experience a priori any more than they have a reason to doubt my own. I think many Christians miss this point.
I’ve come to believe God does not want just (or even primarily) an intellectual relationship with us, just as much as I don’t want only an intellectual relationship with others (probably why I get along better with my dog than with most people ). If God exists (as I believe he does), it is plausible he would want a more personal or more “real” relationship than us just assenting to a positive belief about his existence. I think it was J Warner Wallace who made the distinction between “beliefthat” and “belief in” (though in his case, it was an anecdote about a bulletproof vest)
. Why is it not enough to just say “I feel like X” without claiming to make such an overarching proposition? Is it because we think our personal feelings are somehow less valid and will be taken less seriously?