I often say that I’m a disingenuous Christian. While I realize that many of the claims that Christianity makes are subject to empirical falsification (or, alternatively, verification, if you don’t like Popper), it does not really matter to me whether Christianity is true. I would still be a Christian even if I knew that “Christianity” was manifestly untrue.
I am here, of course, trying to undercut the enterprise of modern apologetics. While I admit to having a tremendous love for almost all aspects of the Christian tradition (hence my church posts), even in all its many myriad foibles and despicable moral failings, the central factor of Christianity remains for me the liberating potentially of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the gospel for the poor and oppressed, and not how philosophically convincing it is in explaining how the universe came to be. Ultimately, then, my Christianity does not hinge on whether Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity or any other equivalent theological minutia. Theodicies are a particularly disgusting example of this, and they should be recognized as standing firmly outside the Christian tradition. The Christian response to evil and injustice is not to philosophically downplay its existence and excuse God from any culpability in its reality, but to look to Jesus Christ and fight to overcome it.
I am not trying to insulate Christianity’s claims from empirical investigation or corroboration. Heaven forefend, I think all theologoumena – the doctrine of creation, for example – should be subject to the most rigorous investigation possible. While I may be a disingenuous Christian, I am not a self-deluding one. I certainly want to know whether it is true or not, but its truthfulness is not a condition for me being a Christian. If Christianity is recognized as being un-true, the only truly Christian response to that is to loudly and forthrightly admit it.
Even then, though, I will still with the church confess Christ as κύριος.
[...] A.J. Smith is a disingenuous Christian. [...]
[...] On Being a Disingenuous Christian « Stromata. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. ▶ No Responses [...]
You wrote …. ” the central factor of Christianity remains for me the liberating potentially of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the gospel for the poor and oppressed, and not how philosophically convincing it is in explaining how the universe came to be.”
As I read this – I wondered if you missed the ‘creation element’ in Christ’s role proclaiming the gospel for the poor and oppressed, or I wondered at least if I understood creation differently than you? I wondered if your sense of ‘how the universe came to be’ is the biblical ‘how’, the bible emphasises?
For example, that “God created the universe” answers a ‘how’ of creation; doesn’t it? (How did the universe come to be? God created it, that’s how!) Isn’t this the point the bible makes about creation? That God created man in His image in the first place, may be pertinent to ‘why’ Christ (the creator) proclaims the Gospel to the poor and oppressed (the created) in the first place; wouldn’t it?
I agree with the inference, that religious folks spend far too much time missing the point, arguing tangents, but could it be that those details that give rise to tangents, have a point (since God cared enough to include them in the bible). Isn’t the point to be disingenuous to the doctrines of man?
Aren’t you ‘kind of’ missing the point?
Andrew’s argument makes little sense to me.
I don’t think that the question about the origins of the universe is settled by saying that God created it. How did God create it? What sort of physical processes drive creation? Unless you’re trying to suggest that we actually take Genesis 1 literally, which is manifestly untrue and unhelpful.
Jeremy, I’m not talking about science. Because you misunderstand me I’ll be more plain. The poster here asserted that “truthfulness is not a condition for me being a Christian”, but that is a seriously flawed view; and dogmatic to boot (which seems to be what he’s railing against).
I agree that the scientific (empirically testable) truths may not be, but I don’t believe that was the purpose of Genesis, nor do I believe we can see those types of truths clearly within Gensis, however Genesis does assert as true many theological claims. These (theological) details of the origin of the universe are important precisely because they are the foundation of all of Christ’s claims, which be believe as Christians. Our belief in Christ’s claims are a condition of being a Christian.
Which details are we talking about, for example? Given the example of creation, I alluded to two facts. First, there is a difference, and a divide, between creature and creator. This is the entire basis of Genesis, and our foundation for understanding relationally why faith in Christ is necessary. Second, Jesus came to restore this created order, therefore theses details about creation must all be true for Christ’s claims to be. He came to restore the image of God in man, for example, which is important, (How do we know?)
[Gen 9:6] explain why murder is wrong; it is wrong because it does violence to God’s image in creation. This is a detail whose truth is important, we know from the creation story. It does violence to God’s image in creation therefore to be forgiven that sin is to have God’s image restored in the sinner. The creation story records this ‘true’ detail in [Gen 1:26]. This cannot be scientifically tested.
The role of Christ, to make us Christ-like, harkens back to this same detail; since Adam stood in the presence of a Holy God, without shame, in Redemption, Christ the creator is restoring us back to this original state. Contrary to the claim of the poster her, the truth of these matters are important precisely because the truthfulness of the minute details of creation testify to the truthfulness of Christ’s claims, which we believe. Belief in the truthfulness of Christ’s claims IS a condition of being a Christian, and from that all else follows.
Christ is true. To stand with the church and be agnostic about Christ is to miss the point…and to miss it by a mile.