Jesus
Won Their Confidence
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the September 3, 2016 Sabbath School Lesson
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do
you say I am?”
Simon
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew
16:15-16, NIV
It has become the paradox of our time that when we seem
to have a greater number of tools at our disposal than we have ever had to
understand the world and the universe, we are less inclined to make the
declaration that Peter made two thousand years ago. Perhaps it has become
fashionable to publicly proclaim, “I am an atheist!” like former pastor Ryan
Bell. Many more perhaps are declaring that they are agnostic, as in one who is
not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God
or a god. In either case, they would not make the declaration Peter made. Some
might argue that Peter’s declaration is the direct result of miracles he had
personally witnessed. However the context of Peter’s statement is not a
miracle. In fact, when the many miracles that Matthew recorded are considered,
it almost appears that he intentionally placed the story of this declaration
away from that context. Earlier in the chapter, Jesus even seems to be saying
that faith should be based on something other than signs and wonders.[i] Where then does that leave
the atheist and the agnostic? The former insists that the existence of God can
evidentially be denied, while the latter believes that His existence can
neither be proven nor denied. It is as though the believer is on one side of
the fence, the denier is on the other side, and the agnostic is seated squarely
on the fence with a foot on either side, “just in case.” This is perhaps why
you rarely ever find atheists in church, but often find agnostics there.
What is it that makes a believer so sure on their side
of the fence? The atheist might say naïve gullibility, since they claim equal
certainty of God’s nonexistence. They deny the efficacy of what the believer
might consider proof as being superstitious psycho-babble. But the believer might
feel that the atheist’s idea of evidence leaves no room for ineffability, which
is by definition a characteristic of an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful,
all seeing deity that transcends space and time and is not bound by them. Atheists
might point to all of the evil in the world as evidence of the non-existence of
any deity that might be considered good. To be sure there is much of that to be
found, but it is circumstantial and even anecdotal where correlation may not
prove causation or, in the negative, lack thereof. While the atheist may see
such things as proof that there is no god involved with our world, the believer
may respond that our existence is proof of God’s involvement. They might point
out that God created us to address those problems. Our failure even argues all
the more strongly for the sin narrative of Genesis, chapter three,[ii] and thus the existence of
the creative Deity that initiated it all. In the righteous acts of some may be
seen the reflection of the God who is involved and has provided a solution –
us.
The agnostic chooses to remain above all of this,
claiming no knowledge of anything evidentiary to either prove or disprove the
existence of God. This implies naiveté on the part of both believer and atheist
for believing either of them supports their position with evidence. The
operative word for the agnostic is doubt. They could be an atheist, but what if
the believer is right? They might instead be a believer, but what if the
atheist is right and they might deny themselves something that they might otherwise
have enjoyed? Perhaps they are more comfortable in church because in spite of
their felt intellectual superiority to the idea of faith, they know that the believer
also struggles with doubt. Perhaps it is in the way they each handle doubt that
is the crux of the difference. For the agnostic, the doubt may be a reason for
being disengaged and distant. Thomas, the Disciple, is famous for his statement
that he would not believe in the resurrection of Jesus unless he could see and
feel Jesus for himself.[iii] According to John’s
narrative about the event, Jesus readily complied with Thomas’s request, but He
also pronounced a blessing on those who believed without such proof. This
perhaps leaves the agnostic out in the dark, for the apparent emphasis seems to
be on one’s ability to believe regardless. This may leave them with little
defense unless one can be found in deprecating the validity of the biblical
account. Of course, the Bible was not dictated by God. It was written by men
attempting to present inspirational narrative based on their understanding of
what took place. While some might, seeing the flaws inherent in such an effort,
deny any inspirational element and even claim evidence of a pattern of
deception, sinful men being what they are, others might see further evidence of
the ineffability of God which would of course doom the perfectionist to failure
no matter how hard they might try to be infallible in the account. In short,
the errors are there. They prove the Bible was written not by an infallible
God, but by fallible men. Their imperfect characterization of God nonetheless carries
enough instruction for a salvific response to the problem of sin. It also apparently
provides an operations manual for how to deal with sin in our world without destroying
ourselves in the process, since sin taints us all.[iv] These things together
might argue for something more than a merely human influence.
But how do we move from a position of doubt to one of confidence in God? Reason
does play a part, according to Isaiah. He wrote that God said, “Come now, and
let us reason together…”[v] This may be difficult for
the atheist, for the very idea that the believer has a cogent argument is
anathema. But the agnostic may have more flexibility in this regard for the
very idea that they have doubts about the ability to prove that God does not
exist is tantamount to admitting there may be the possibility that there is an
underlying, unknown coherency to the believer’s faith. If that possibility
exists, it would be unreasonable to refuse to explore it. While Isaiah does not
go into the reasoning process, his statement implies that it is possible to
come to God through a reasoned approach. But herein is the paradox for the
atheist. In order to reason with God, one must believe that He exists.[vi] It makes no sense to debate
with someone who isn’t there. They must somehow move from a position of
certainty to one of doubt. Once they have done that and become agnostic in the
process, the paradox is that one must set aside doubt in order to have their
doubt set aside. Perhaps this is why Søren Kierkegaard was ultimately led to
his concept of a relationship with God requiring a “leap of faith.”[vii] This also may be why the
believer’s faith seems so irrational to both the atheist and the agnostic.
Maybe it can be understood by the agnostic, if not the
atheist, through the physics concept of the multiverse. It is theorized that a
number of parallel universes exist with us inhabiting one universe progressing through
linear time. While they may exist, even progressing with similar, parallel chronology
and the possibility of their existence may be shown mathematically, the
parallel universes are ultimately unknowable as we have no way of transitioning
from one to the other, either physically or communicatively. Other speculative
concepts such as sub-space and wormholes are similarly beyond our ability to
see or produce. Yet we sometimes find it easier to accept these by a “leap of
faith” beyond evidence than we do for the acceptance of involved deity.
Strangely this is in spite of the fact that no one has ever claimed to have experienced
any of these phenomena, while myriads have claimed to have experienced
interaction with deity. We might ask then, which is the more reasonable leap of
faith?
The entire issue may be age related. It may be much
easier to suspend disbelief when we are children and have not yet been
inculcated with the many reasons why we should not do so. Perhaps this may in
part account for Jesus’ “except you become like children” statement.[viii] A skeptical mind may be
an advantage when dealing with a substantive threat to one’s existence, but
this may be the problem. We may be perceiving belief in or even God Himself as
an existential threat. But on what basis might we feel that way? Is it because we
fear losing control to a deity that seeks to harm us? There may be some basis
for this if one takes a predestinated, Calvinist approach to belief, but if one
sees faith as a matter of Arminian free will where one may exercise faith or
not according to choice, at any time picking it up or eschewing it, there is
not an issue of involuntary loss of control. For this reason, agnostics may feel
more comfortable in Arminian confessions than Calvinist. Such being the case,
it may actually be unreasonable to not experiment with faith in such a relaxed
environment. With so many who have done so and found confidence in God, we may
find ourselves reticent because of a fear that it might also happen to us. But
having experienced it myself, I found those fears to be unjustified and the
rewards of such an experience to be beyond measure.
