Jim over at Moral Science Club does a fine job taking on a "challenge" from The Freedom From Religion Foundation. It's the old "Resurrection Challenge" in which the skeptic points out "discrepancies" in the biblical accounts of the Resurrection to "prove" that it's riddled with contradictions. Of course, Jim didn't seem to hesitate at all. While others have turned "from preacher to atheist" (The "Resurrection Challenge" is documented by a Dan Barker who wrote "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist".) over this, Jim just hummed right along without missing a step. "I took your Easter Challenge and didn't find it too challenging." While others comment "There is no way anyone can be intellectually honest with themselves and with others and reconcile all of those discrepancies", Jim just went down the list and showed how none of it was a problem.
What was the difference? Why did Jim have no problem and the skeptics do? Why is it blatantly obvious to me and critically obscure to them? I suspect it is largely a matter of presupposition. I believe that most of our conclusions in life are based on presuppositions that form them long before they're ever made.
This last weekend I had the privilege to meet with a friend I hadn't seen in over 20 years. What fun! We chatted and caught up on the vast gap (you know, a lot can happen in 20 years) and enjoyed each other's company. We talked about what happened after we went our separate ways, where we went, and how we got here from there. Once we exhausted that synopsis, we delved into other things like our divergent worldviews. My friend was struggling over "God". Who was He? Was He? Was the Christianity he had embraced anything close to right, or was it simply his persuasion? He asked some of the standard tough questions that other people ask. Why does God allow bad things to happen? Why are we here? Why did God allow sin? You know, the standard stuff that most of us, if we are honest, are hard-pressed to answer. I know I am.
I didn't have a lot of definitive answers for my friend. You see, what I consider "definitive" he considers "speculative". Why is that? Because of presuppositions. I assume that God exists. I assume that from logic and from evidence and from experience. From that I conclude that God is good, omnipotent, omniscient ... you know, all those things that we recognize as "God". When I assume those things, the answers come more easily to me than to others. I don't chase down a "What if God is a meany?" question because ... He isn't. I don't wonder if God is capricious because He's not. When I struggle to find answers to some of life's more difficult questions, I struggle from the perspective that God is Sovereign and Good and so the answers I come to must align with those presuppositions.
Now, those of you who are predisposed to think that you're "objective" and "not given to presuppositions" are fooling yourselves. Those, in fact, would be ... presuppositions. The truth is that everyone operates from presuppositions. We all have basic beliefs from which we operate to form other beliefs. The materialistic scientist, for instance, may assume that all that there is is the material world and will, by definition, ignore the possibility of the supernatural. All his conclusions, then, will be based on that initial presupposition and anyone suggesting, "Well, maybe God did it" would be thrown out as ludicrous ... not because the evidence demands it, but because it falls outside the initial presupposition. Theists (which are too rare, actually) presuppose a God who is intimately involved in the world. Their conclusions will be drawn with that presupposition in place.
And it's not as if presuppositions preclude any other conclusions. Biblically Paul was a prime example of changing presuppositions. When he was on that road to Damascus to arrest Christians, he was operating on one set of presuppositions. By the time he arrived at Damascus, his entire underlying system of beliefs had changed. So it's not that presuppositions are unchangeable. It is that presuppositions always form the conclusions that follow them.
Jim, over at Moral Science Club, doesn't bat an eye. Believing in a Bible that can be trusted and a Sovereign God, he takes the time and effort to look for ways to correlate the biblical accounts. The answers are there and they are reasonable if you choose to look for them. He does. The skeptics, on the other hand, presuppose that the Bible is a book written by men about a mythical god. The original "challenge" is not intended to find the truth but to question it. And no amount of reasonable responses from Jim and others will move them because it requires a change at a deeper level than "Answer these questions." That is my prayer; that changes will occur at a deeper level for those who struggle with these questions. To some of us, the answers don't seem that hard. To ignore the fact that they are daunting to many people would be foolish on our part, even if the skeptics ignore the fact that they seem blatantly obvious to some of us. Let's not forget that sometimes the answers to the questions isn't what is needed. There's something deeper here.
6 comments:
Hi Stan
Thank you for the good review. I think some of the others were disappointed that I didn't sound challenged by it. There was an interesting pattern that the discussion went from nit-picking the Bible to nit-picking the early histories of the church. Even if we were to convince or confound unbelievers with the Bible account, they'd be on to something else before you know it.
Presuppositions definitely rule our culture. Thanks again,
Jim
Jim,
**I think some of the others were disappointed that I didn't sound challenged by it.**
I'm not sure disappointed is the right word. Speaking for myself, I was hoping that someone who does believe this can be harmonized to post an account using all the details, through trying to harmonize it themselves. I know Stan posted an account, but not all the details were included. And I know that you (Jim) posted a website that harmonized, but I still found things that didn't quite match in terms of the Gospel accounts, such as phrases the angels used and so on.
For me, I've tried it three or four different ways, and there's always something that doesn't add up, based on what one Gospel writer is trying to convey.
**Even if we were to convince or confound unbelievers with the Bible account, they'd be on to something else before you know it.** Except HIS, JfC and Marie are struggling to keep their beliefs. You may not have been challenged, but they are. Shouldn't you post an account where you do list the order with all the details to give them an idea? (Honestly, I'm probably beating this to death at this point, and I apologize. But I didn't see this as nit-picking, and I don't think they did, either. I guess I was just hoping that you would post your attempt, since you said that you didn't find it challenging).
Truthfully, I don't think these accounts can be harmonized, nor do I think they were supposed to be. But for some, the harmonization is important.
Heather,
In my reply over at the other site, I tried to address your concerns. I don't know if you noticed.
I do find it odd that the kind of things bothering you are things like the precise wording of what an angel said at a given time. Any eyewitness account of any event at any time will differ from any other eyewitness account, and no account will contain every single detail. I don't actually see where the two accounts of what angels said contradicts anything. I take them as accurate representations of what the writers were told. It is the nature of a narrative. Does that make them wrong?
Hi, Stan.
I did notice, and responded.
The precise wording is bothering me for pretty much the same reason I mentioned over there -- what each Gospel conveys emotionally, and what each phrase is supposed to mean, and how these stories would be interpreted of they weren't being harmonized. I jused the Matthew example for the angel -- when reading what he says in context with the rest of the Gospel, it comes across as he's telling the women not to be afraid like the guards, even though the women saw the stone move, and he invites them inside to see that Jesus is not there. Now, that's one line, yes. But one line can say a lot, and that line would read as though the women haven't been inside yet. And the synotpics are set up to infer that the women only needed to be spoken to once by the angels, mostly because Jesus had already said what would happen, and this made it 'click' for them.
In many ways, it seems that the methods have to be 'stretched' to harmonize the Gospels, when we wouldnt' do that for any other source. I was also an English Lit major, so this is what I did for four years. :) And because there's so much symbolism in the Gospels to begin with, almost like there's no unnecessary details, I think individual lines are very important, and why someone said that particular thing.
Overall, how I'm reading this is each Gospel tries to tell a story, and I see if fitting something in from another Gospel works with the arc of the individual Gospel.
You know what, I am starting to see I have a whole lot of the same idea's Heather has - which I never thought would so much as happen in this blog journey. Must be that whole Jewish context thing I see the both of us persuing.
Heather said**And because there's so much symbolism in the Gospels to begin with, almost like there's no unnecessary details, I think individual lines are very important, and why someone said that particular thing.**
Then why are you so worried about why it didn't say something else? Anyone who studies the Bible should understand that the Holy Spirit is very meticulous in what it chose to be there, as you do.
Note that those who just want to dissect the gospel accounts don't seem to be so concerned about reading them individually. I did a homiletic for John 20:1-18 and the struggling ones didn't seem the least interested.
There is a factor here that I haven't seen considered. There is nothing I know to do to help HIS, JfC and Marie believe in Christ or His resurrection. It is the Holy Spirit that ultimately convinces each person one at a time. As Stan said, "Let's not forget that sometimes the answers to the questions isn't what is needed." Indeed its that spiritual connection that we know didn't just come from us, a contact was established from outside of us by our risen Lord, and has now become a part of who we will always be.
That's what needs to happen, not that the gospels need to fit to be real, but that the gospel itself needs to be real to the believer.
Post a Comment