Why should you believe in the Christian God?
“Whereas the Bible and the best thinkers of Christian history invite seekers to put their faith in God because the message conveying that invitation is true, countless Christians today believe for various other reasons. For instance they believe faith is true ‘because it works’ (pragmatism), because they ‘feel it is true in their experience’ (subjectivism), because they sincerely believe it is ‘true for them’ (relativism), and so on.”1
Os Guiness penned this in his Time for Truth. But if Dr. Guiness believes that Christian truth is contrary to what he calls pragmatism, subjectivism and relativism, what happens if we re-frame his sentence to reflect that? If we do, it would look like this:
“Countless Christians today believe . . . faith is true ‘because it doesn’t work’, because they ‘do not feel it is true in their experience’, and because they sincerely do not believe it is ‘true for them’.” (Emphasis added).
Does this make Christianity sound truthful?
Or even vaguely appealing?
I hope not.
Instead, this reframing detaches it from human experience and makes it sound completely false and untrue. So what’s going on? If it is reasonable (and true!) that Christian truth is unrelated to pragmatism, subjectivism or relativism, then why does it sound so wrong when we plainly express it that way?
Let me suggest two reasons.
First, we need to distinguish between pragmatism and ‘being pragmatic’, where pragmatism indicates an ideology versus a ‘pragmatic’ orientation or interest. So where being pragmatic means that it’s important that things function as they should, adopting pragmatism means that “functionality” is your guiding principal (over and above, say, truthfulness).2
So is being pragmatic (instead of embracing pragmatism) compatible with believing Christianity to be true? I think so. And more than that, it’s the same with being subjective and relative. Here’s why:
As human beings we should value our own lives (we naturally care how things “work out”—we are pragmatic). We are indeed finite (we see things from our limited, subjective viewpoint). We understand contextually (we make sense of things relative to our background and experiences).
As I’ve argued before, these characteristics are not limitations but are the very basis for knowing and experiencing anything at all. But valuing our existence, embracing our finitude, and acknowledging that human understanding is contextual (i.e., being pragmatic, subjective, and relative) are also the necessary ingredients for developing and maintaining a thriving relationship with God!
Second, Os Guiness also writes that “the Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true.”3 Yet considering what we have discussed above I believe that this is incorrect. Or rather, insufficient. In other words, not only do people experience that Christianity “works,” I believe that Christianity must work in order for belief to be credible.
I would put it like this:
“Christianity is true because it works (as truth-for-me), and it works because it is true (as ultimate Truth).”
Now I maintain that it works (for me or anyone) because it is true (and ultimately so), but in order for me to perceive it as true it must—on some real and tangible level—work for me. It is the alignment of my fullest / best-reasoned truth (call it ‘truth-for-me’) and the Bible’s truth claims (as ultimate Truth) that convinces me of the truth value of these truth claims.
Back to pragmatics, relativity, and subjectivity.
Aligning Truth and truth-for-me is necessary because humans are finite: bereft of unmediated access to God’s ultimate truth we instead evaluate such truth claims from our subjective, relative position. Yet valuing my life and how things ‘work out’ for me—being pragmatic—means that it is also necessary for me to substantiate the claim that this God is good and that God’s love for me is real (and not fictional or abusive).
Thus being subjective, relative, and pragmatic are not obstacles to embracing Christian truth but are our very means of doing so. Next week I examine how.