My Back-and-Forth With JP Holding: Round 1

I have recently been invited to have a back-and-forth with James Patrick Holding (JP Holding). He like to debate atheists, take on aspects of Christianity, and comment on Christian leaders among other things. His main site is tektonics.org and is dedicated to apologetics (defending faith). So he asked if we could do a little volleying on each of the 10 things I hate about Christianity as described in my book.

So here if the first round on Faith:

A Decalogue of Detestations

*a dialogue with Jason Berggren

I do not recall how I first came to pick up Jason Berggren’s book 10 Things I Hate About Christianity (you can find it here,and we do recommend it for reading), but as I went through Berggren’s amiable prose, I could not help but be reminded of my own article on Christian myths and how they could lead to believers being caused to struggle, or even apostasize.

Berggren, a former Christian musician and now a pastor (you can read more about him here and there is a thoughtful interview with ABC here that deserves a viewing), is not, as the title may suggest to some of our readers who have seen us review works with similar titles, someone like Dan Barker or Gary Lenaire who has abandoned his Christian faith.He maintains his profession of faith, and does so quite definitively.But as he recounted his struggles, I could not help but nod my head and think, “This is exactly what I have been talking about.” Berggren has given us a biographical narrative that puts flesh on the bones of our warnings here.

I thought it might be interesting to do something a little different this time, though. Ordinarily, we might just review a book like Berggren’s, but as I sensed in his words an amiable spirit, I instead wrote him this email:

I have a proposal for you. I’d like to do a series for my online periodical in which I discuss each of those ten points and what I’d say in response to them. I was thinking of sharing those comments with you and getting your reactions. The eye for this is to solve the issues, so to speak, so they become less hateful subjects.

Berggren responded positively to this proposal. And so we begin with what we look to turn into an extended series (maybe 10 parts, to match Berggren’s book), starting with the first entry, on faith. I have commented on the chapter to begin, and Berggren replied with his own comments, then I offered a few concluding words.

The reader may find it helpful to have Berggren’s book as a reference as we proceed — it is not absolutely necessary, but I believe the impact will be greatly sharpened if one has read his own chapter first.

#1: Faith I’ll have to admit something from the start: If “faith” were indeed as Jason describes it, I’d probably hate it too.

“Faith”as a magical force –one that dispels “all the unknown variables and problems” in life, one that answers all the questions, takes away all the problems – that’s the faith of many Christians today, all right.It’s promoted as pious and worshipful. It’s preached from pulpits onlevels that vary from the annoying to the obscene to the quite blasphemous. (I won’t name names here, regular readers know who they are from past issues.) Poor faith is blamed for poverty, for illness,and for sin. And it’s all wrongheaded.

Jason has quite perceptively fingered the problem with “faith” as it is taught from today’s pulpits – at least in the modern West. As laid out,it has a serious “fantasy element” involved. He asks a fair question,implicitly: What’s the difference between believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God, and Jesus? (I wonder if he know show many times I’ve heard atheists say the same thing, not as an honest question but as an insulting comparison.) “Could this also set us up for almost certain disillusionment as we grow up and inevitably question the existence of God and consequently the meaning of our own existence,” he asks?

Could it? Yes, it could. It has. I’ve seen it happen more times than it ought to.

Let’s break for the positive aspect of the case for faith, to use a Strobelism. You’ll find all the details here, but in this essay we’ll apply the lesson directly to Jason’s very poignant observations.

Faith was never meant to have a “fantasy element.” None. That meaning has evolved (better, mutated) from the injection of modern forms of thought into the Biblical setting, imposed from without rather than derived from within.

Ina nutshell: In Biblical times, “faith” (pisitis) meant, more or less,”loyalty”. And in Biblical times, loyalty was decided based on who earned it. In other words, you have to give eviden
ce that you deserved loyalty.

Of course, there’s nothing to stop someone deludedly injecting fantasy into the mix, claiming that their cult leader deserves loyalty because he looks so handsome, or could perform magical tricks, or knew how to interpret Revelation better than anyone else. But the point is that”fantasy” is not inherent to what faith is. Even these are examples at least of a claim to have evidence, however lousy it is.

Paul said that without Christ’s Resurrection, our faith is in vain (1 Cor.15). Read the sermons in Acts 2 delivered to the people to persuade them to become Christians. It all appealed to evidence – Jesus rising from the dead, miracles being performed, prophecy being fulfilled.Evidence was the basis for calling people to faith in (loyalty to)Jesus. Does that sound like faith has a “fantasy element”? No. We can argue that miracles are fantasy, but that again is a debate over the nature of the evidence – not the principle or the basis for faith.

I’ve said that I’ve seen plenty of disillusionment over this very basic problem. And I mean that. The souls who have abandoned or injured their Christian walk because they believe faith is a feeling, a mystic burning in the bosom, or as Twain says, “believing what you know ain’t so,” stand in a line like the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Frequently I’m called on as an apologist to clean up the messes these people make, to put a stop to a domino effect of cascading”failure of faith” in the lives of those who pick up these contagious perceptions.

Our churches don’t teach us to believe based on evidence. And Jason is right – that’s setting us up for a fall. Assuming we haven’t fallen already.

So that’s the story as it has been revealed to me by a study of what those who read the Bible first would have affirmed. We don’t need to “face the fact that having faith isn’t really an intellectual exercise.” On the contrary, it is inclusive of exercise of the intellect. We’re supposed to take into account arguments for the existence of God and what we believe (though in New Testament times, atheism was yet to be a respectable option). Peter and Paul didn’t call people to faith on the basis of feeling, but on the basis recorded history. (We don’t use piecharts and graphs, of course, but I suppose I could create some nice PowerPoints.) There’s also no need to “intellectualize” the faith decision – because it should already have that element of the intellect within, by definition. It should be noticed that Jesus specifically included the mind as an instrument in loving God. (Luke 10:27)

At this point we return to a negative aspect. As I have said, some people have left faith because of bad faith. But then there are some who end up in a sort of in-between state, where Jason describes himself –hating the fantasy element, but hanging on because what they believed nevertheless gave them “the ability to navigate life in the midst ofthe unknown.” What’s at work here is the fact that even without considering historical evidence, Christianity gives people a workable philosophy of life. It gives them direction, and for some that’s enough to keep going with it.

However,some manage to convince themselves that intellect is evil, or even that appealing to evidence is (gulp) Satanic. If anyone doubts this, I have plenty of statements from Christians to this effect. It makes for reading that is both funny and sad at the same time. Here’s a sample from someone in contention right now for a yearly award I deliver to boneheaded statements, who argued that God preserved His Word inerrantly in the King James Version: “…your problem is that you don’t believe that God could preserve His words like He promised He would.The language that Christ spoke is irrelevant.”

Seems odd? It isn’t, once you realize that one way to maintain “fantasy faith” is to add epicycles of fantasy evidence (e.g., “God inspired the KJV”) – which is otherwise called “rationalization.”

Irespectfully disagree with Jason. Faith is not irrational and was never meant to be. The modern “faith” is irrational at its heart. Pistis was not. “Fantasy, mystery” faith can only lead in three directions, ultimately.

One is to become an evidential epicyclist, like our friend just above. The bad news is that you’ll probably end up in a sanitarium somewhere by the time you’re finished cycling.

Another is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and become an atheist, a Moonie, or a Branch Davidian. That’s the tragic option, usually aided and abetted by some emotional trauma.

The last option is to do what Jason did – leave it in suspension as a”calculated conclusion” which allows that the unknown may hide something better, but until then, it is a mystery we can live with.

I’m glad he took that reasoned approach, unlike so many others. But I hope I’ve given some insight into a way that is even better.

Jason’s response:

Overall,I have no contention with your impression of my evolution on how I view faith. I find your points interesting and valuable. Of course, I am notwithout opinion, so I will respond to a few important details. In any event, I certainly appreciate the dialogue.

First, while I agree that many churches and Christian leaders primarily teach the “fantasy element” of faith, there are many that don’t. My c
hurch doesn’t. Several of my best friends are pastors, and they don’t. The problem is, this self-destructive approach to faith is very damaging,so the effects are deep and last long. Worst of all, it causes people to walk away from God. So any that do, is too many. Plus, these churches and leaders get the most media attention. Looking from the outside, who isn’t mildly entertained by seeing the Holy Spirit thrown like a baseball to an anxious crowd? That just makes for a good story.

While I contend that faith is not necessarily an intellectual exercise, that does not mean my faith decision is (or was) devoid of any intellectual principles. Either I was not clear enough in the chapter, or this was misunderstood. I simply point out that faith means accepting and being loyal to certain things that we cannot personally prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We have to rely on the unknown at times—the whole‘evidence of things not seen’ thing, as stated in Hebrews. By default,this creates some intellectual gaps, inasmuch as intellectualism defines reality through pure reason and proof. But when it comes to origins, I refuse to believe that existence and creation is purely accidental and random. For me, that is an intellectual decision. In fact, I think it’s crazy to believe, apart from an intelligent design,something can come from nothing. That requires more faith than even Ihave. So faith is somewhat irrational, but it is not unreasonable.

Like you, I do not view intellectualism or science as evil or contrary to God or Christianity. To hold this view is, well, stupid. As in any movement (or business, organization, institution, etc.), the most fallible aspect is the people. And these types of people give Christianity a bad name. God made us as sentient beings with the ability to think and reason. He also made a universe with order. In my mind, the two compliment each other.

So my faith—my loyalty to God—gives me the ability to navigate life in the midst of the unknown. It’s the one thing I know to be true and right.

My concluding comment:

What can I do but nod my head, again, to the points made regarding the damaging effect of the teaching of what Jason rightly calls the”self-destructive approach”? We’ve written some articles here about some of those people who get that media attention (and good grief, I live 10 miles from where one of those that throws the Spirit like a baseball used to preach), so a chorus of amens is about all I can offer.

The point made regarding reasonable doubt is an interesting one. As it happens, I am right now re-reading a book I enjoyed many years ago titled Outrage, by legal prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, in which Bugliosi closely examined (and had a lot of [cough] unpleasant things to say about) the prosecution of the O. J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi is a self-proclaimed agnostic, but his discussions over what constitutes”reasonable doubt” and when things may be considered proven in a court of law reminded me very much of the standards for proofs of Christianity (and especially the Resurrection) as laid out in works of legal apologetics.Under these rubrics, I myself would say that many elements of Christianity (such as the Resurrection) have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be true. Some aspects (like the nature of the Trinity, for example), however, are accepted only based on what is revealed to us in the Bible, and in that sense, I agree we have gaps:We accept those as true based on authority, some of which is derived from that which is more solidly in evidence. (E.g., the Resurrection does not prove that Jesus’ theological teachings are correct, in the evidential sense, but they lend Jesus authority, such that his theological teachings become the de facto resort, absent sufficient contrary proof.)

Regarding whether I perceived if Jason’s own faith was or was not “devoid of any intellectual principles”: Actually, given his very fair and intellectually robust presentation, had I been asked,I would have said that intellectual principles were indeed part of his considerations. After all, behind his narrative lies some quite poignant, well-reasoned arguments!

In sum: I thank Jason for this exchange, and I believe it has been productive. We’ll see everyone for the next issue when we talk about Prayer.