THE APOLOGETIC: CHRIST AS UNPROVABLE
Apologetics apparently has a large market. On the Christian side at least, there are thousands of videos on YouTube, so many books, and (arguably) pointless debates online. I’m no expert in the skills needed for apologetics, my studies in understanding my religion is primarily for my own benefit, not persuading others. Perhaps that’s why my light dabble in apologetics has been more of a heart wrenching lesson in the stubbornness of the human mind and aversion to seeing different worldviews than it is an evangelism mission.
More and more, I see the exercise as mostly a way to flex muscle, and an invitation to pride. Not all debate is bad, and some debaters I respect (On my side, I’d say Randal Rauser and Eve Keneinan are unbelievably intelligent, and Randal in particular, is quite respectful of his opponents). However, when most of the debates is in the style of social media discourse (basically whoever is louder wins), it is always infuriating when (on Twitter especially) atheists and Christians exchange insults. I am so guilty of this, that I’ve considered quitting Twitter altogether, my soul felt so dead then.
I did learn something though, something valuable, and it gave me peace of mind. I realized I could never prove Christ. Although I understood that, scientifically, proving things like the resurrection or the reality of God was a fool’s errand, however I agreed that philosophical demonstrations do prove God, and even now, the arguments for God are rather impossible to refute in my opinion, all others have done is misunderstand it, no matter their protests to the contrary. What is different in my thinking is the vision required to understand those arguments. I shamelessly admit that I believe in God apart from the arguments for Him, but I realize that is normal. To know God, one has to meet Him. And, even better, I realize that apologetics culture is part of the problem, but it is a symptom of something else, John Milbank put it well:
Such a rationalist attitude to God also sunders a primary approach to God from any reference to history, worship, or the ‘theological virtues’ of faith, hope, and charity. But this separation became inevitable once ‘a being’ was regarded as a clearly knowable ‘fact’, and God himself was placed in the category of such facts. For in that case, ‘what is revealed’ will be regarded simply as extra information with God as a supreme will deign to impart to us. Hence already with Scotus, it was said that there can be a registering of a revealed truth prior to the act of faith, and the latter is less a mode of judgement, than an impulse to believe under the (quasi-physical?) prompting of the Holy Spirit [1]
The primary mode by which we know God isn’t arguments for Him. For all our Christian arguments for salvation by Grace, we forget that we don’t reason our way to God, rather our reason (which is ultimately not ours) is itself God reaching out to us. He is Logos, the transcendent rationality of all things. Grace is “default”. Christ reaches out, and we can’t reach out for Him, we can’t point to any “objective reality” with absolute certainty, all is faith.
What are we to make of the fact that a ‘resurrection’ forms part of this memory? Resurrection is no proof of divinity, nor a kind of vindication of Jesus’ mission. And no very good ‘evidence’ survives, only the record of some strongly insisted upon personal testimonies. What we have is a memory of continuity, or ‘ordinary’ conversation, of eating and drinking, continuing beyond death. Without this element, there could not really be a memory of ‘perfect’ community, for this is normally inhibited by the forces of nature as we know them, and by death, especially. [2]
I don’t expect atheists or anti-theists to get this, some are waiting for God to personally visit them for them to believe Him. It is safe to say they’re sorely mistaken. Those that do not care, I at least admire their indifference, it is perfectly fine, no one has to prove anything to you. I’m sorry for all our intrusion, we will have conflicts, if only because we always act on our beliefs, so it’s normal. But, if anyone is searching, I have heard this advice from a few people, but from David Bentley Hart first:
It is good to keep this in mind if one really wants to discuss the search for God, or simply the issue of whether there is a God to be sought. Any search, if it is to be successful, must be conducted in a manner fitted to the reality one is looking for. I happen to think that reason alone is sufficient to compel assent to some sort of formal theism, at least insofar as reason is to be trusted; but that still leads only to the logical postulate of God, which may carry with it a certain arid certitude, but which is in no sense an actual knowledge of God. However great the force of a rational conviction may be, it is not yet an experience of the truth to which that conviction points. If one is really to seek “proof “ one way or the other regarding the reality of God, one must recall that what one is seeking is a particular experience, one wholly unlike an encounter with some mere finite object of cognition or some particular thing that might be found among other things. One is seeking an ever deeper communion with a reality that at once exceeds and underlies all other experiences. If one could sort through all the physical objects and events constituting the universe, one might come across any number of gods (you never know), but one will never find God. And yet one is placed in the presence of God in every moment, and can find him even in the depth of the mind’s own act of seeking. As the source, ground, and end of being and consciousness, God can be known as God only insofar as the mind rises from beings to being, and withdraws from the objects of consciousness toward the wellsprings of consciousness itself, and learns to see nature not as a closed system of material forces but in light of those ultimate ends that open the mind and being each to the other. All the great faiths recognize numerous vehicles of grace, various proper dispositions of the soul before God, differing degrees of spiritual advancement, and so forth; but all clearly teach that there is no approach to the knowledge of God that does not involve turning the mind and the will toward the perception of God in all things and of all things in God. This is the path of prayer— contemplative prayer, that is, as distinct from simple prayers of supplication and thanksgiving—which is a specific discipline of thought, desire, and action, one that frees the mind from habitual prejudices and appetites, and allows it to dwell in the gratuity and glory of all things. As an old monk on Mount Athos once told me, contemplative prayer is the art of seeing reality as it truly is; and, if one has not yet acquired the ability to see God in all things, one should not imagine that one will be able to see God in himself. [3]
In short, the posture of humility, from both theists and atheists, is required if one wants to know God. I can’t claim that I know God exhaustively, no one can. However, I can say that I have “met” the reality we call God, He is light and fire, terrifying and loving. Pardon my use of the male pronoun, it is habit, but Godself is the most terrifying thing to encounter. I, the most sinful person I know, am not worthy. I don’t understand the love that puts up with my fornication craving heart, but whenever I remember what I saw, I realize that no matter what happens, God never lets go. All the physics I study can never take me away from God, if anything it brings me closer. We are all returning to Him, and He will be all in all. Amen.
[1] See John Milbank; The History of the One God (1997) for a treatise on Monotheism in general, for something on the uniqueness of Christian Monotheism in particular, and its decline in the modern and postmodern world.
[2] Milbank’s ‘Postmodern Critical Augustinianism’: A Short Summa in Forty Two Responses to Unasked Questions (1991) shocked me with its admission of humility, and is actually a rebellion against the especially proud forms of Christian epistemological “superiority”.
[3] David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God (2013) remains one of the most beautiful relatively accessible books on God I have read.