5th Week of Lent (F)
Ghosts are real. UFO's are actually demons. Bigfoot walks the hills of Montana. All living things are embodied souls. God exists. We can label all of these as statements of belief. And we can assent to each with varying degrees of certainty. What these statements have in common is difficult to see. “Bigfoot exists” and “God exists” seem to be radically different sorts of beliefs! Nonetheless, we name both “beliefs.” Philosophers distinguish “to believe” and “to know.” Knowledge is necessarily true given the available evidence. Belief takes authoritative testimony as evidence. Now, we have a distinction btw evidence and authority. Do I believe Bigfoot is real b/c the available evidence requires I do so? Or do I believe b/c Youtube is packed with videos of people witnessing to an encounter with him? OR, is testimony just a form of evidence? All this is just the beginning of the problem of teasing out the question of what it is to believe that something is true or false. The Gospel tells us that many begin to believe in the Christ b/c they come to believe that what John the Baptist said about him is true. Before they believed in Christ, they believed in John.
If asked, could you explain your own belief in Christ? If so, how would you do it? You could take the route of popular apologetics and demonstrate the truth of your belief using history, archaeology, science, and good ole logic. The problem here is that you concede the standards of evidence to your opponent and open your belief to being treated as a scientific claim. IOW, your belief that Christ rose from the grave becomes equivalent to your knowledge about the atomic structure of hydrogen. Another popular route is to claim that religious belief is immune to rational explanation and simply assert the truth of your beliefs w/o the need for evidence. This approach turns your beliefs into opinions and leaves them easily refuted with opposing opinions. The better way is found in the Gospel. Over time, John's testimony about the Christ is proven true. Bit by bit, everything he says about Jesus is laid bare and found worthy of belief. Testimony is not scientific knowledge, but its weight can tilt the scale toward trust. And it soon becomes apparent that trust needs no evidence. In fact, trust based on evidence is no trust at all. Where does this leave us as believers?
As followers of Christ – as believers in his mission and ministry – we are not charged with demonstrating the scientific truth of our faith. We are charged with bearing witness, with giving testimony. We have moved from being unrepentant sinners to forgiven heirs. How did this move occur? What was it like? How are we different now that we've hidden ourselves in Christ? We point to God's mercy and lay claim to His promise of salvation. What does this look like day-to-day? If I remain the same miserable person I was before Christ, then what difference has Christ made for me? If my joy is dead, where is Christ? If I refuse to love, forgive, rejoice – why bother with Christ? If nonbelievers watch me go through my day and I come across as sour, defeated, morose, and angry – then what will they think belief will do for them? Think about it this way: you need to convince a jury you are not a dangerous criminal. Who do you want to be a witness on your behalf? Someone who lives his/her life with you as though you are innocent? Or someone who says you're innocent but refuses to live with you? The best evidence that Christ is Lord is a Christian who speaks and acts like Christ is Lord. Trust needs no evidence. But faith needs a witness.
No comments:
Post a Comment