Issue 2 - Doubt and Winsomeness
Apologetics
Outside of mathematical proofs, literal certainty on any topic is impossible to achieve. Apologists (such as Stephen Meyer, in his excellent work "Return of the God Hypothesis") will therefore talk about “inference to the best explanation,” which is the process of identifying which theory/hypothesis provides the best explanation of available data. While we will explore arguments in favor of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity in future newsletters, I wanted to raise this concept as a way of framing considerations about alternatives to Christianity. If you focus purely on unanswered questions you wrestle with about Christianity, it could feel like there are enough gaps in your certainty to question your faith. It is therefore helpful to take the same approach and think about what unanswered questions you would have from atheistic materialism (the belief that there is no God and matter is all there is - no higher plane of spiritual reality). When you do, you’ll see that this worldview has even more unanswered questions. I will delve more into devoted apologetics topics in future newsletters, but one basic of apologetics is to always keep in mind that Christianity doesn’t necessarily need to offer a perfect explanation for reality but the best explanation for reality (noting that our finite minds will probably never fully grasp reality). As Tim Keller put it in his book The Reason for God
"The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness, you must doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs — you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared."
The other thing to keep in mind is that all worldviews ultimately rely on faith. For example, to explain the observation that the universe had a beginning, many atheists posit the existence of a “multiverse” that generates universes. This can’t ever be proven or observed because by definition it’s a process outside of this universe, but it is accepted as an article of faith by many of those who don’t believe in God.
Cultural Insight
I just quoted Tim Keller extensively and have a great deal of respect for him. But today I present an essay that offers a critique of Tim Keller's methods by a Tim Keller fan arguing that the move from “Neutral World” to “Negative World” (following the taxonomy from the prior newsletter) has rendered Tim Keller’s brand of cultural engagement obsolete. Much digital ink has been spilled on the subsequent “Winsome” debates in online Christian circles in the intervening two years, with many accusing author James Woods of advocating for an abandonment of Christian principles of engagement (for example, 2 Timothy 2:24 [don’t be quarrelsome], Colossians 4:6 [let your conversation be always full of grace]) in favor of bellicose confrontation (basically the “stick it to the libs” attitude adopted by some on the political right). That is not the case, as he clarifies in his follow-up essay. I do think he makes several points that are worth considering:
The more at-odds Christian morality becomes with society, the more difficult it becomes to avoid offending non-Christians.
If we assume that winsomeness will gain a favorable hearing, then when we receive heated pushback we will be tempted to conclude that our convictions are the problem.
While Christians should absolutely avoid aligning themselves with a specific political party, Christians who emphasize avoiding offense may be tempted to stay out of political frays altogether (e.g., fighting to end abortion) to avoid giving the appearance of partisanship.
Put another way, the author is arguing that (a) we can’t avoid offending people with Christian teaching so while we should not seek to offend, neither should we hide our offensive views, and (b) we should not let second-order considerations of how actions will affect our “public witness” overrule first-order efforts to pursue good.
I offer this as food for thought!