Christianity Considered

A Guide for Skeptics and Seekers

John M. Frame

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781683590873
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Christianity is more than a religion: it is also a complex intellectual tradition. Christians and non-Christians who want to understand the world as it is today have to understand Christianity, too. Christianity makes objective claims, but also presents a new way of thinking about the world. In A Guide to Christianity for Skeptics and Seekers, renowned theologian Dr. John Frame introduces the reader to the Christian religion and its unique intellectual framework, describing the key pillars of Christian thought and how these shape the Christian worldview.Covering a range of topics, from the resurrection to the Christian posture toward politics, A Guide to Christianity for Skeptics and Seekers is a valuable guide to understanding the Christian faith as an intellectual tradition.Useful for both the Christian reader looking for a better understanding of the faith and the skeptical reader who seeks to understand the intellectual tradition that has done much to shape the modern world.

CHAPTER 1

CHRISTIANITY AS INTELLECTUAL RADICALISM

Have you ever fantasized that there might be a whole different way to think? a drastic innovation which leads us to insights now unimaginable? that opens our eyes to see things in the world we might otherwise have thought impossible? that leads us to decisions in life which, however bewildering they may be to friends and society, produce incomparable satisfactions?

Perhaps you remember Plato’s story of the cave dwellers, who preferred to live in the shadows, who misunderstood those who had actually seen the light. Could there be a difference like that among people, so great that only a contrast like “darkness vs. light” would adequately convey its dimension?

The counterculturalists of the 1960s often thought of drugs that way: a gateway to a higher consciousness, the way to experience higher levels of reality. I doubt that they found what they were looking for. The drug experience wrought more destruction than illumination on the whole. But their dream lives on. I suspect that many of us share it.

If there were such a new mind available to us, how would we ever find it? For if we are locked into our old mind, the assertions of the new mind might well seem ridiculous, impossible. How can people who have spent all of their lives in caves begin to comprehend even the possibility of a light like the sun?

Well, perhaps the new mind is a gift, something granted to us supernaturally. I think that is the ultimate answer. But for now, let us simply observe a more human consideration, that the quest will demand an unusual degree of openmindedness: a willingness to admit the possibility that at least some of our timeworn ideas of what is true and right and possible and impossible may not be accurate.

Christians have often been conservative, even traditionalist, and many think of Christianity as a reactionary ideology. But the Christianity I defend in this volume is radical, rather than conservative, traditionalist, or reactionary. It calls us to engage in a self-criticism more profound than any other, one which humbles us to the roots of our existence. And that self-criticism must be comprehensive: criticism not only of our moral and religious life, but of our intellectual habits as well.

In this book I will explore some familiar questions of apologetics such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, but I intend to present these and other issues in somewhat unfamiliar ways. The familiar arguments are not worthless, by any means, and I will rely on them at points. But in developing the main line of argument, I believe we can improve on the tradition. I have in mind particularly two kinds of improvement: one focusing on the past, another on the present and future.

Traditional apologetics has, first, often failed to show clearly what it was that made the early preaching of Christ so persuasive to people in the first century. Why was it that so many people found this message entirely credible? In the New Testament record, there are no theistic proofs, not many complicated arguments; yet the preaching of Christ outlined in the New Testament led many to firm conviction. The epistemology of this process may seem somewhat mysterious; but I think that new light can be shed upon it, light that will illumine the Bible’s own distinctive rational structure.

Second, I believe that the distinctive rational structure of biblical Christianity will help us better to evaluate the cogency of the Christian message for our own time and into the future. There is no doubt that for many people today the traditions of Christian apologetics are no longer persuasive. Indeed, as I shall argue, the traditional apologetic’s collapse of credibility in our time has created a crisis of faith for many and, for others, despair of ever coming to faith. Modernity and postmodernity have seemed to present unprecedented obstacles to Christian faith.

But there are resources in the Bible’s own apologetic that will overcome—quite surprisingly—the objections of modernity and postmodernity. Remarkably, the most biblical apologetic will also prove to be the most contemporary. This is not surprising to Christians. If the Bible is really God’s truth, then its message will be ever fresh, ever new, ever powerful to overcome unbelief and to create faith.

My view is that the traditional apologetic has been strong insofar as it has reflected the Bible’s own implicit apologetic; insofar as it has not, it has always been weak, and those weaknesses have only been magnified by the modern challenges. But in essence Christian faith has always been grounded in the Bible’s own epistemology, even when it has sought additional confirmation through inferior argumentation.

In any case (please allow me to employ the directness of the second person), it is important for you to consider the Christian claim. In my own view, it is a matter of eternal life or death for you. In your own view, for the present, it may be only a matter of completing your education. But if you read this book merely to advance your education, I hope and pray that its biblical apologetic will surprise you, that you will find far more here than you had ever imagined. Not that this book is filled with original insight. What surprises it contains are actually very old: biblical thoughts which are not usually found in present-day books. What I hope to do in this volume is simply to present a biblical way of knowing God in contemporary language. If I succeed in this purpose, I have no doubt that it will be worth your while. It could open to you the resources of the new mind, and access to God’s new world.

CHAPTER 2

WHY YOU ARE NOT FULLY EDUCATED UNTIL YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THE CHRISTIAN TRUTH CLAIM

The first step on the way to the new mind is to consider the claims of Christianity. In this chapter, I hope to motivate you to do so.

One cannot be truly educated without taking some interest in Christianity. Christianity is at least one of the most fundamental influences in the formation of Western culture. Within that culture, not only religion, but also art, philosophy, science, economics, and politics have to some extent been either developments of Christian ideas or reactions against Christianity. In Western history, the role of the church and of individual faith has long been central to political debates and armed conflicts. As for non-Western cultures, much of their recent history has been a history of opening to the West and therefore to Christian influences—although, to be sure, the West has simultaneously been opening itself to non-Western ways of thinking and living.

Today, there are additional reasons for secular-minded people to be interested in Christianity. Some respected scientists, for example, have found significant analogies between the big bang theory of the origin of the universe and the biblical doctrine of creation. The “religious right” in the United States has reasserted the political activism typical of Christianity, after many years during which evangelical Christians were untypically passive. And of course today this movement has been joined by an equally activist religious left.

Some would claim that the reinvigoration of Christianity, together with that of Islam, new-age mysticism, eastern religions, paganism, and other movements, is leading the modern world into a new religious age, an abandonment of the secularism dominant over the last 200 years. Others, however, would claim that society today is more secular than ever, and that religious people are asserting themselves out of desperation. In any case, debates over the place of religion (and, in the West, especially Christianity) in modern life are becoming both more frequent and more heated in our time.

BUT IS IT TRUE?

So it is important for educated people to know many things about Christianity: its doctrines, piety, ethics, history, social and political influence, and so on. But most of all, it is important to determine whether, or to what extent, Christianity is true. Serious study of any movement requires evaluation as well as description and analysis. To evaluate Christianity, we must come to a reasoned judgment as to whether its distinctive claims are true or false.

There are, to be sure, other kinds of evaluation. One might believe that Christianity is false while commending, say, the influence of Christians in the abolition of slavery. Thus one may make a negative evaluation of Christianity’s truth claims but a positive one of its contributions to social justice, art, or literature. Yet the evaluative process can scarcely ignore the issue of truth. For if Christian teachings are not true, then the church has, intentionally or not, deceived vast numbers of people.

Many discussions of religions operate on the premise, expressed or not, that religion really has little to do with truth in the usual sense, that its importance is rather to be found in its ritual, literary imagination, social conscience, or political influence. However that may be the case with other faiths, that premise is quite false in the case of Christianity.

Christianity comes before the world, above all, with a claim of truth—and not only “religious” truth in some vague sense. It claims to be based on historical events, events which were seen, heard, experienced. I recall a medieval history lecture at Princeton University in which the Jewish scholar Norman Cantor discussed the differences between Christianity and the various mystery religions of the first century. Why was Christianity ultimately successful, while the mystery religions eventually disappeared? Cantor noted certain similarities and differences between Christianity and the mysteries. But the foremost difference, and that which ultimately led to the success of the church, was, in Cantor’s view, the fact that Christianity made a historical claim. Other faiths spoke of dying and rising gods, of salvation from the pains of this life. But Christianity identified one historical man as God in the flesh and claimed eyewitness verification of his death and resurrection. Indeed, Christianity located this event within a well-known historical sequence, the history of Israel. There were Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.

Cantor put all his emphasis on the historical claim. But of course a historical claim in itself is somewhat irrelevant to the success of a movement. The claim must be concerned with a matter of importance, of course. And most of all, that claim must be believed: believed to be true. People do not risk their lives in the face of persecution to uphold a view they believe to be in error or only somewhat probable.

To deny that truth claim about Christ is to reject Christianity at its root and indeed to cast a shadow upon all of its supposed accomplishments in history. For all the good it has done, it is, if false, at root a deception, which the human race should best set aside.

On the other hand, if that claim is true, then even the evil done in the name of Christ takes on a different perspective. Yes, Christians have often done wrong; however, (1) that is to be expected in view of the biblical doctrine of sin, (2) Christianity has done and will do far more to alleviate evil than its wayward members have done to promote it, and (3) God will, in his own way and his own time, surely right the wrongs.

Any serious study of Christianity, therefore, will involve consideration of the Christian truth claim and the grounds for it. I confess I am amazed at the number of supposedly educated people, even scholars in the field of religion, who have learned much about Christianity but have never seriously considered the question of whether its claims are true. This book will attempt to fill that gap in their education.

CHAPTER 3

WHY IT SEEMS SO DIFFICULT TODAY TO BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY

Many people today have little or no inclination to believe in Christianity or any other traditional religion. They look at the whole idea of religion with a profound skepticism. I think I understand something of the skeptical mindset, for I too have something of a skeptical turn of mind. I have always made it difficult for people to persuade me of their ideas. Were I not a Christian, I would probably be a skeptic of sorts. Indeed, one step leading toward my own Christian commitment was a meta-skepticism: a skepticism about skepticism, a reluctance to be persuaded by the more fashionable forms of unbelief.

RELATIVISM

One of these is relativism, a general denial of objective truth. Relativism has been with us for centuries, at least since the Sophists of ancient Greece. Today some people call this position “postmodern,” despite the ancient precedent. “Postmodern” is an honorific epithet: it’s like saying that this position is newer than new. But whether new or old, it is not right.

Relativism can be found among philosophical intellectuals or among uneducated “village skeptics.” But whether found among sophisticates or among the plain folks, relativism is wrong.

If there is no objective truth, then any kind of argument, analysis, or evaluation is doomed from the start. If there is no universal truth, but only “truth for me” or “truth for you,” then there is no point in trying to persuade anybody of anything. If proposition A is true for me, I may want you to believe it too. But not-A may well be true for you; how can I prove it is not? And why should I try to prove A to you? For to prove it could only mean to establish its objective truth. And in this discussion, we exclude objective truth from the outset.

But that presupposition of naive relativism is either self-contradictory or unintelligible. It is self-contradictory if it claims that there is no objective truth while claiming objective truth for its own assertions. If, on the other hand, the relativist denies that even his own assertions are objectively true, then those assertions no longer assert anything. To “assert” means to claim the objective truth of a statement. It is unintelligible to talk about “asserting” something without making a claim to objective truth.

“Naive relativism” is an entirely worthless form of skepticism. That kind of relativism, if taken seriously, would keep us from believing anything at all. But of course nobody takes it seriously, least of all those who thoughtlessly advocate it. Thus it amounts to an abdication of intellectual responsibility: it boils down to a policy of believing what you want to believe and being skeptical about what you don’t want to believe. That policy frees you from the responsibility of ever having to seriously examine evidence.

There is value, however, in skepticism of a less sweeping sort. That is to say that in general it is good to seek evidence when we are asked to change our beliefs in important ways. The Bible frequently offers proof—and counsels people to seek proof (see Deut 18:22; John 5:36; 10:38; 14:11; Acts 1:3; 17:11; 1 Cor 14:29; 15:1–8; 1 Thess 5:21).

We shall look at that proof in later chapters. For now I woul...