The Astonishing Witness of Faith

I know that I'm partial, I admit that. At the center of my being I'm a person who believes, yes, in the incarnation of Jesus -- that God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5). So, I guess it's no surprise that I find Andrew Sullivan's defense of the faith so compelling and rich.

Sam Harris suggests that it would be wonderful if children might grow up without the stain of their parents' faith commitments, that they could be immersed only in reason, where there is no contingency -- just pure reason. Sullivan questions whether that is possible. Consider that we are a product of our context and that context includes religion. But we're not limited to our parent's values/beliefs.

I grew up Episcopalian and Republican. I was an acolyte in the church and went door to door for Richard Nixon. But I rebelled and became a Pentecostal, later I rebelled again and became a Democrat. I'm a product of my family heritage, but I'm not bound by it. Yes, had I been born in a different context I might be someone else -- but that's true of every aspect of our lives.

Sam Harris asks Sullivan to consider abandoning his faith in response to the challenges of reason. Sullivan answers in a way that probably has resonance for many: Why? While admitting the dark side to the Christian faith, there is also a tremendous heritage that is Christianity. Why give this up?

And then more specifically there's the person of Christ -- isn't it intriguing at all that a failed minor rabbi executed by Rome becomes the object of worship/faith for millions.

Again, consider his closing paragraphs and then go back and read the entire piece. As you do consider the dictum: "faith seeking understanding."

Even today, as I type these words, I look on my desk and see the sign I bring with me everywhere: his cross. When I go to dinner later, a small cross will come with me, in my wallet. In my study at home, a fourteenth century wooden carving of Jesus stares down at me from the wall. He is alive in me and millions of others after all this time, sustaining, nurturing, inspiring not just me but countless more. Even if you do not believe in him in the way I do, surely you must acknowledge that something very special has been going on here, something truly remarkable, something beyond the norm of much else in human history.

I have a rational, empirical explanation for this. It is that those who saw Jesus saw something so astonishing, so utterly unlike anything that had ever occurred before, that they became on fire with this new truth. They saw God. It was a contingent expression of God - how could it not be if humans were to witness it? But it was also an eternal expression, so that today some will still say: I know this Jesus as well as anyone ever knew him. And Jesus grasped this paradox of contingent-eternity that is the core mystery of the Incarnation. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

What is your explanation? How do you account for why one person out of the billions who have ever lived had this impact? How probable is it that all these countless followers were all deluding themselves completely? And if Jesus wasn't nothing, what was he in your eyes? What secret did he hold that so many others haven't?

That is an empirical question. And it merits an empirical
answer.

Comments

Anonymous said…
As a non-believer I am, unsurprisingly, not nearly as impressed with Sullivan's responses as yourself. Sullivan has had more to say in past rounds of the debate, but this response to Harris seems to be Sullivan trying to justify his faith via a popularity contest: How can millions of satisfied believers possibly be wrong?! Order your faith today!

The belief in Jesus held by millions is enough for Sullivan to believe in Jesus's divinity and a host of other claims (virgin birth, resurrection) made by Christian doctrine. Yet the equally popular belief in Mohammed and Buddha only inspires unspecified "questions" for Sullivan. By his own argument, Sullivan should apparently have faith in Buddhism and Islam to the same degree he believes in Christianity... but he doesn't. He doesn't believe in these other faiths because, despite his lip-service to ecumenicalism, he doesn't really take their truth claims seriously because he wasn't raised a Muslim or a Buddhist.

That's the kind of contingency Harris was alluding to and the kind of contigency Sullivan evades in this verbose response.
If Sullivan's wants to justify his faith using the methods he has, then he needs to justify his lack of faith in these other religions that are equally valid. A lukewarm admission that "maybe they're right too, but I'm not going to think too hard about it" is not enough.

Popular Posts