Discussion: the Basis of Faith

After some consideration, I've concluded that this post doesn't really belong with the Friendly Evangelism stuff (even though it's a direct outgrowth of that discussion). So, I've changed the title and adjusted the tags accordingly. Apologies in advance for any confusion that might cause.

As she suggested/requested in the comments on the last installment of Friendly Evangelism, Grace/Becky has come back to talk about the atonement of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity. (If you want more context, her comments are here.)

Let me start by reproducing Grace's comment:

I've tried to find the post where you had mentioned your struggles with the concept of God as trinity, and the atonement of Christ. But, unfortunately I couldn't locate it, sooo, I thought I would leave some brief comments here.

I began to question and struggle with my faith when I was about nine or ten years old. And, for a time as a young person was agnostic.

It seems to me that it is healthier for kids to be reared in church environments where it's ok to do this, and even encouraged, rather than to be made to feel guilty for being naturally inquisitive.

Any faith that emerges in the long run is bound to be more grounded. I think it's when doubts and questions are continually pushed down that the bottom is most likely to drop out spiritually.

I'm thinking that any analogy we try to paint to describe the work of the cross of Christ is bound to fall short of the thing itself.

How can our finite human minds fully comprehend all the precise mechanics of how God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself? Do we even have to know exactly?

What I believe as a Christian is that by the dying and rising again of Jesus Christ we are ultimately put right with God, and with each other.

God loved us so much that He fully entered into human life and suffering so that we could share in His life forever.

I suppose I would be more partial to the Greek Orthodox view of the atonement which is different than the view of Anslem which tends to predominate more in Western theology.

As usual where Grace is concerned, there are parts of this I agree with, parts of this I disagree with, and parts where my perspective is simply different enough to make agreement or disagreement a moot point.

Let's start with a quick link to the background: my take on why I am not a Christian. I'm putting this in for the same of completeness, and for the benefit of anyone who's coming in late to the conversation. Grace's memory of what I said is essentially accurate: I can't see how the idea that Jesus Died For Our Sins could work, and I see that belief as central to Christian faith.[1]

"It seems to me that it is healthier for kids to be reared in church environments where it's ok to do this, and even encouraged, rather than to be made to feel guilty for being naturally inquisitive."

I don't think it's even possible to overstate the degree to which I agree with this.[2]

Having said that, I did come out of an environment where questioning and doubts were encouraged, or at the very least not punished or even considered unusual.[3] And what eventually emerged from my questioning was not a stronger faith, tempered by questioning and comfortable with its inevitable doubts, but a simple disbelief. (So, at least in my case, it isn't a bad religious [or social] environment that drives people out - sometimes looking for answers or improved understanding can do it, too.)

"I'm thinking that any analogy we try to paint to describe the work of the cross of Christ is bound to fall short of the thing itself.

How can our finite human minds fully comprehend all the precise mechanics of how God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself? Do we even have to know exactly?"

Speaking entirely for myself... No, I don't have to know exactly. But I do have to have some reason to believe that that's actually the case, and (preferably) some idea of how it might work, even if it's extremely counter-intuitive at first glance. From the outside, Christianity really doesn't offer much in the way of either.

"What I believe as a Christian is that by the dying and rising again of Jesus Christ we are ultimately put right with God, and with each other."

What exactly do you mean by "dying and rising again of Jesus"? I was baptized as a baby, so if I died - even spiritually - during the experience, I don't remember it at all. I was confirmed at, I don't know, twelve or thirteen, and again I don't remember dying or rising again of Jesus Christ. I've read about some shamanistic practices that feature symbolic deaths and rebirths - sometimes including being buried for a day or so, with an air pipe - but in Christianity the worst that happens is that you spend a few seconds underwater. So how are we dying and rising again? And if we aren't, how does that put us right with God - let alone each other?

And, for that matter, I haven't seen anything to indicate that becoming a Christian and/or renewing your Christian beliefs puts us right with each other. People who are petty, competitive, shallow, vindictive... or whatever... remain very much as they were. People who were open, giving, kind, warm, friendly... or whatever... also remain very much as they were. Sometimes they're inspired to improve - I once picked up a hitchhiker who had, as far as I could see, exchanged his addiction to drugs for an addiction to Jesus, which I'm sure was an improvement - but even then, the extent to which they're transformed is a precise measure of the extent to which they transform themselves.

I say all that without any sort of malice, irritation, or contempt - and I really hope it doesn't come across as condescending. It's just that you say that you believe this happens, and I simply don't see it. And until/unless I do, my general view of Christianity as something that Just Doesn't Work For Me is unlikely to change.

"God loved us so much that He fully entered into human life and suffering so that we could share in His life forever."

I have several issues with this, and I'm not sure where to start. First of all, if Jesus could wither trees with a word and call the dead back to life, I'm not sure he entered fully into human life. If he never sinned - and, as a consequence, never felt regret - I'm not sure he ever entered fully into human life. Since, by most accounts, the punishment for sin is an eternity in Hell, I don't see how three days of suffering is even remotely sufficient to pay for anyone, let alone everyone.

Perhaps more to the point... God (and, as an aspect of God, Jesus) is omnipotent, isn't He? If that's truly the case, why should entering into human life be a prerequisite for reconciling human beings to Him? An all-powerful being could simply will us to be reconciled, and it would be so. Dying on the cross should only be necessary if the deity isn't actually all-powerful (i.e. if He's bound by rules outside Himself), or if the whole thing is basically a show put on for the benefit of humanity. Neither scenario is entirely satisfactory.

"I suppose I would be more partial to the Greek Orthodox view of the atonement which is different than the view of Anslem which tends to predominate more in Western theology."

I don't have an answer for this, because (as I mentioned way back at the beginning of the Friendly Evangelism series) I don't have anything that even resembles a formal background in theology. What I have, mainly, is a minor in Anthropology and a certain familiarity with medieval history: not the same thing. But I suspect that the official stance of the Episcopalian and Anglican denominations is at odds with the Greek Orthodox view of the issue, which begs the question of why I would want to return to the Episcopal church, even if I were inclined to reconsider Christianity at large.

But even that overlooks the more fundamental question: why should I believe any of this at all? I don't say that to be dismissive; it's a serious question. I don't see human imperfection as evidence that we are somehow "separated" from God, in part because I don't see any evidence that there is an alternative, "connected" state of being that is observably different. Without that underlying assumption, the question isn't so much "How might Atonement work?" but rather "Why should I think Atonement happens at all?" or perhaps "What makes you think that people would need Atonement?"

---

[1] A commenter on the original post just reminded me that, once again, It's More Complicated Than That. To be really precise, I should say that the idea that Christ paid the price for our sins is central to mainstream American Protestant Christianity. It certainly isn't universal.

[2] It's not just doubts and questioning, either; for me, those are only parts of a larger category of related things, what the poet Keats referred to as Negative Capability: "when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." There are, I think, two sides to this. The first is simply being able to accept doubts and ambiguities and the limits of understanding, without being threatened by them. In practice, it oftens means learning to accept "I don't know" as a valid answer. The other side of it is that there are some experiences and understandings that simply are what they are; trying to extend them into a system or apply them beyond their first appearance not only leads you nowhere, it actually destroys whatever initial insight was achieved. That's not to say that you shouldn't look for larger patterns or more general truths, just that trying to push an insight beyond its limits seldom ends well.

[3] I once found a copy of the Bible... sort of... as translated by, I think, National Lampoon. I think I was about twelve. Being a compulsive reader, I flipped it open and started in. The section I read recounted the story of Onan - you remember him, right? His brother died, and so he was required to marry his brother's wife and provide her with children. Except when he lay with her, he spilled his seed on the ground. And then - in this account - later he went into town and a pretty girl walked by, and he spilled his seed on the ground. A while later a moderately attractive donkey passed by, and he spilled his seed on the ground... I'm sure you're wondering: where did I find this? One of the priests had it on his desk.

If anyone can identify this and knows where I might find a copy, I'd be grateful. Again, while I don't look at the world and think, Wow, that's so amazing, there must be a God, I do look at the world and think, Wow, if there is is a God, He certainly has a rich sense of humor.