All comments

Guerrilla Worship - Liverpool Flash Mob

The world has moved on.: Re: Guerrilla Worship -... (1 day ago)

Why YOU Should Plant a Church

The world has moved on.: Re: Why YOU Should Plant a... (1 day ago)

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?

Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (4 days ago)
Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (5 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Contradictions in the... (5 days ago)

Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth

john doyle: Re: Day One: A Sir Toby's... (5 days ago)

A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren

john doyle: Re: A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian... (5 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (5 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (5 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (6 days ago)
Syndicate content

On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

What is the meaning of evidence in an emerging faith in Jesus Christ?

To start moving toward an answer to this question, perhaps it is wise to briefly consider the role of evidence in more traditional faith circles. Perhaps the most influential text in this regard is Josh McDowell’s mega popular, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (EDV).

In the Preface of EDV, McDowell begins by asking: “Is Christianity credible?” “Is there an intellectual basis for faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God?” What does credible and intellectual mean in the context of the book? In McDowell’s words, “For me, Christianity was not a ‘leap into the dark’ but rather ‘a leap into the light.’ I took the evidence that I could gather and put it on the scales. The scales tipped the way of Christ being the Son of God and resurrected from the dead.” Thus, we might uncontroversially say that McDowell has staked the credibility and intellectual soundness of faith in Jesus Christ on evidence behind the text.

The significance of historical evidence is decisive for traditional faith circles. Evidence validates faith in Christ, so much effort goes into trying to confirm the facts behind the text, as McDowell’s book does an excellent job. This kind of apologetic exercise, however, is quickly loosing currency among emerging followers of Christ. Why? Because it is rooted in the “modern” interpretational context, where highly rationalized systems of thought provided a sense of certitude about one’s faith in God. Today, for growing numbers of Christians, this no longer makes sense. We are emerging into a new interpretational context were claims to certainty and objectivity are suspect.

With the emphasis on the evidence behind the Holy Bible, the concrete details of the text itself increasingly meant little in the “modern” context. For those of an emerging stripe, more significance is placed on the words and stories of the Bible, while the facticity behind the text is deemphasized. What is important in this context is how Jesus’ parables, for instance, give us meaning by drawing readers of the Bible into the message of the kingdom of God.

So: In this new context, the validating evidence isn’t behind the text. The Holy Bible is the evidence and what validates it is the transformative power of the stories and parables themselves.

To return to the question at hand, what is the role that evidence should play in an emerging faith in Jesus Christ?

Evidence behind the text should not be privileged over the text itself. An emerging faith in Jesus does not stake its credibility and intellectual validity on material evidence. Living in a faithful relationship with Christ is not a matter of getting accurate evidence or testing a hypothesis.

So, I propose that evidence should play at least two roles in an emerging faith.

One role is to continue using behind the text evidence as a mode of apology for post-evangelicals trying to relate to traditional faith circles. Behind the text evidence, in this sense, is a practical bridge between paradigms. But to be clear, using evidence in this manner should be seen as a missiological strategy or resource. The evidence is neither a means of proving your faith in Jesus nor is it a means of accounting for the credibility and intellectual integrity of Christianity.

A second role for evidence in an emerging faith in Jesus is to faithfully and creatively interweave a reading of the Bible with our everyday lives such that the light of our way bears genuine fruit toward the kingdom of God. In this new context, fashion yourself into a living parable of Jesus’ love, mercy and service toward your neighbor and enemy.

In short, the role for evidence as a missiological resource in an emerging faith is to carry the good news of God’s kingdom into the postmodern condition and to reach back and help our brothers and sisters in Christ to ascend the mountain of the Lord together with us.

No votes yet

Comments

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

This may be entirely tangential, so I will couch the question with reference to your metaphor instead of to something more complicated.
Do you believe there is something inherent to the way in which the third umpire experiences ‘reality’ which negates the existence of “the Intrinsic Nature of Reality”, or is it possible to believe that such a Platonic Ideal exists while still believing that it is impossible to experience that ideal directly?
Many, what I will call, “casual” post modernists that I have met (almost always on college campuses, almost always young, smug, self-assured and rarely as smart as they think they are) seem to interpret the post-modern condition not as an indictment against our ability to experience the Platonic Ideal directly, but against the existence of a Platonic Ideal. The existence of any “reality” outside our own descriptions of the reality we experience is not only meaningless, but an intellectual trap. Nothing exists beyond our experience of it.
This has always struck me as being very problematic, and within the context of our faith, irreconcilable. While we may not be able to know G-d as an existence outside our limited, human perspective, is it not inherent to our faith to believe that G-d does exist outside of ourselves in that sense?

~jhimm

it’s smarter to be lucky
than
it’s lucky to be smart.

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

Do you believe there is something inherent to the way in which the third umpire experiences ‘reality’ which negates the existence of “the Intrinsic Nature of Reality”, or is it possible to believe that such a Platonic Ideal exists while still believing that it is impossible to experience that ideal directly?”

No, I don’t believe there is anything inherent in the way in which the 3rd ump experiences ‘reality.’ I would say that the ‘reality’ he experiences is in large part a matter of the presuppositions that underlay those experiences, and that enable him to say I had THIS experience and not THAT experience. The third ump makes a different set of presuppositions than the first or second umps. So, I think that yes you could believe in Platonic Forms and also believe that you will never experience them.

But I hesitate to make the analogy that God is akin to a Platonic Form.

The notion behind the piece I wrote was a matter of reformulating the role of evidence for faith. I would like to move away from the empiricist tradition that dominates Christian discussions of evidence.

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

The notion behind the piece I wrote was a matter of reformulating the role of evidence for faith. I would like to move away from the empiricist tradition that dominates Christian discussions of evidence.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was just curious if there is an implication with a move away from realism into “something else” which necessitates an abandonment of a notion of an extant reality beyond our perceptions, assumptions and points of view. I probably over-simplified (re: G-d as Platonic Form) in an effort to keep the question short.

Thanks,

~jhimm

it’s smarter to be lucky
than
it’s lucky to be smart.

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

What I’m proposing isn’t necessarily a move away from realism. I would say that it is more realistic than realism and properly naturalistic to boot. My understanding of relational-realism follows in line with, say, Wittgenstein and Rorty, who want to remove the metaphysical baggage from language and firmly re-situate language in its contexts of use. We need to stop thinking about language as referring to the Intrinsic Nature of Things and start thinking about language as doing things—like coordinating and disrupting human actions.

At the same time, by situating language in its contexts of use, I am able to assert along with John D. Caputo that beyond the social world that we know, is the possibility of a genuine Otherness, a de-anthropomorphized reality able to surprise us with the Unexpected.

So, it is not a move away from realism so much as an embrace of a really-real-realism and the possibilities for Otherness that it holds. I hope to make a post about this in a while. I would like to contrast two kinds of realisms—the dualistic realism that is more commonplace (e.g. NT Wright version) and a relational realism that I talking about. Thanks for asking!!

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

I think I am too out of practice with formal philosophy (its been nearly 15 years) to make these kinds of highly finely grained distinctions.

Popular culture seems to embrace post-modernism as having the upshot that “there is no ‘real’ beyond our point of view, so we’re all right! yay!”.

I tend to think of post-modernism as something more like “because we are incapable of escaping our own point of reference to experience ‘real’, we are all wrong, so stop imposing your wrong on other people who disagree”. But I’m not willing to give up that sense of the real being out there, beyond our point of reference. The important consequence is not relativism as a justification for any and all points of view, but rather a realization that claims to truth are inherently flawed and oppressive. Because the ‘real’ is beyond our experience, the precise nature of that ‘real’ is no longer relevant.

When people ask me why I am a christian, I tell them “because I see evidence in my life which leads me to conclude G-d exists and seeks to have a relationship with me”. I also make it clear that I cannot and will not present that evidence to them for their critique. It is my evidence for me. It is not a universal evidence. They are my reasons and they may not hold water from your point of reference, but that does not invalidate them from mine.

Is this more like what you are suggesting? I sometimes feel a bit trapped by certain learned modes of thinking. We got hammered with a lot of Platonic thinking at college and the notion of language not being referential of the INT is difficult for me to internalize.

~jhimm

nothing lasts.
nothing is finished.
nothing is perfect.

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

 Jacob

I would like to contrast two kinds of realisms—the dualistic realism
that is more commonplace (e.g. NT Wright version) and a relational
realism that I talking about.

I started a thread sometime back on the NT Wright version: "NT Wright is seriously wrong, part 2: does all history depend on interpretation?"

Paul Hartigan 

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

But I hesitate to make the analogy that God is akin to a Platonic Form.

Is there already an existing thread here to discuss the nature of G-d from a philosophical point of view? I’ve recently heard the conversation between Caputo and Kearney which seems like a great review of the changing concept of G-d within Christianity over time, but I either couldn’t follow closely enough or maybe they ran out of time. It seems that they never got beyond the survey of history to discuss potential ideas of what may be the most appropriate way to conceptualize G-d within a post-modern context.

They are clearly critical of a number of the historic concepts, but I think I lost the thread at some point, which might be easier to follow in print. But I don’t want to start a new thread if one already exists to be read.

~jhimm

nothing lasts.
nothing is finished.
nothing is perfect.

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

And so we meet again, my friend. I’d not paid close attention to your POV until our discussion on the Dawkins post, which is one of the more stimulating conversations I’ve had on the blogs. I’m perplexed, however, about the reference to the “three umpires” made in the comments to this post. I’ve done a fairly careful reading of the text and I find no reference to umpires. I acknowledge your view that “concrete details of the text meant little” to modernist readers, but they mean something to me. Can you confirm intersubjectively that umpires do not in fact appear in the post? I infer from the comments that once they existed but that they have been ejected. Why?

 

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

To be honest, I don’t remember why exactly I referenced the umpires.  I don’t recall removing it.  However, I am familiar with an umpire analogy.  It goes something like this:

Three baseball umpires.

One calls it like it is.

Two calls it like he sees it.

There ain’t nothing meaningful until I call it, says the third.

The umpires show us a gradual movement away from naive realism, to critical realism, to a more constructivist perspective on knowledge.

Re: On the Importance of Evidence for an Emerging Faith

Here’s a link to a fascinating 2009 NYTimes article speaking to the three-umpires scenario. An excerpt:

Before this season, Major League Baseball outfitted the last of its ballparks with the $10 million Pitch-f/x zone evaluation system. The system uses digital cameras to take about 25 pictures of the ball in flight between the pitcher’s mound and home plate.

The audited data from this system are sent to Major League Baseball, which then passes along the information to umpires to use as a training tool. Mike Port, vice president of umpiring for MLB, says that when it comes to calling balls and strikes, the umpires are about 95% accurate. But here’s the interesting part: The Pitch-f/x system’s ball and strike calls are very near 100% accurate…

Beyond these theoretical issues, cutting back on umpires would also save money. On any night with a full schedule of 15 games, there are 60 umpires on duty. Another 15 to 20 more umps, often up-and-comers from the Triple-A ranks, work at least a few games each season, filling in when vacations, injuries and other unexpected events occur. Unlike the NFL, whose referees have outside jobs, baseball’s officials are full-time employees. Baseball doesn’t release salary figures, but experts say typical umpire pay ranges between $120,000 to $350,000 a year, not including benefits and travel expenses.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.