Agnostic Christianity?

"I can't say for certain whether the main postulates of the Christian faith are true. Even though many people try prove them true using logic or empirical evidence, I find such 'proofs' to be severely inadequate and unconvincing. I recognize that my 'personal experience' is insufficient to 'prove' them true to anyone, and that such experience is not at all unique to my faith tradition. In all honesty, I think that a position of uncertainty is probably the most reasonable position a person could take in a discussion of religion, but I personally still think Christianity is closer to truth than other faith traditions...for what it's worth."

OK, so these words aren't actually a quote, but they're a quote I wish I could say I've read from a Christian author, heard from a Christian authority figure, heard preached from a Christian pulpit, or even heard Christians say to me in private. This seems like a perfectly civil way to approach religious difference and the question of uncertainty and doubt. But in my experience, I have rarely, if ever, heard a 'believer' say anything approximating this declaration. In fact, I've often heard quite the opposite, that if one does not declare with certainty, condemn doubt, and experience the divine first hand, then that person has no business calling themselves a 'Christian'. It's entirely possible that this is due to my own personal limited experience and exposure to Christianity in an Evangelical North American setting, but history seems to suggest that this sort of posturing is not unique to Evangelicals (or Christians for that matter!).

My thinking for some time has been that uncertainty is OK, and probably the most intellectually honest position a person could take with themselves and others. Sure, there are practical aspects of 'the gospel' that are easy to buy into (i.e., caring for society's 'least', loving your enemies), but believing that Jesus is God, that he was born of a virgin, or that he was raised from the dead are not at all necessary for those practical aspects to appeal to socially minded humans or to be applied and have functional value in society. I've heard believers and unbelievers alike argue that those practical aspects would not even exist if it were not for Jesus' declarations, and that without belief in Jesus' divinity, they carry no authority. But, even if these are ideas that originated with Jesus (a suggestion that I can accept as potentially true, but probably is not true) they can still be acted upon whether Jesus is divine or not. And, as far as whether anyone would take these suggestions seriously unless Jesus is divine, well, I find that suggestion suspect, since I haven't observed any correlation between 'belief' or 'disbelief' in Jesus' divinity and concern for the 'least'...in fact, quite frequently I've observed what appears to be a complete disregard or even contempt for the 'least' coming from Christians and I've seen 'unbelievers' demonstrate the sort of compassion that I believe Jesus was talking about.

Last year I came across this brief article about T.H. Huxley (AKA 'Darwin's bulldog) and his conception of 'agnosticism'. It discusses his understanding of agnosticism to not be some middling position of indecision, but an assertion that he didn't think we could know some things with certainty...namely whether there was a God, but also that there was no God either. While he tended to think that there was no God, he made no bones about the fact that he was not 'certain' about that thought, thus the article refers to him as the 'agnostic atheist'. While I have no idea about the historical accuracy of this depiction of Huxley's position, it does sound like a reasonable position (for both atheists and believers). And, with that, I'd like to suggest a new category of Christian, the 'agnostic Christian' to refer to a person who hopes some aspects of Christianity are true (i.e., there is a God, he loves us, he intervenes on our behalf even if we don't understand it) or tends to live according to Christian principles (i.e., care for the least, love one's enemies) as a result of this hope, but is entirely comfortable with expressing the uncertainty that is inherent when speaking about things that can not be 'proven' and is perfectly OK with that uncertainty.

Book: The Truth War by John MacArthur

In The Truth War John MacArthur purports to make the case against a 'new' movement within Evangelical Christianity that he sees as a threat to his version of orthodoxy or 'The Truth'. MacArthur, pastor of a southern California megachurch, believes that modern Evangelical Christianity is being led astray by a group of authors, theologians, and popular commentators who he views as a challenge to what he believes is the truth presented in the Bible. He believes that these thinkers, who he refers to as 'Emerging Christians' are poisoning American Evangelicalism with their pluralistic political views, references to modern popular culture, an ecumenical orientation, and especially their post-modern critique of traditionalist thinking. He goes so far as to suggest that these thinkers are evil promoters of apostasy and heretical thinking.

In opposing these thinkers, MacArthur intends to place himself in the tradition of Biblical prophetic voices calling for repentance among 'Bible believers'. However, rather than challenge people's thinking he simply asks them to submit to his ostensible authority and accept his interpretation of the Biblical texts. His challenge to the reader is not to question the status quo but rather to refrain from any sort of critical assessment of traditional Evangelical ecclesiastical authority and conventional fundamentalist thinking.

In a clear display of the feebleness of his own arguments, rather than engaging those he differs with in a meaningful discourse, MacArthur resorts to the use of desparaging ad hominem statements about their sincerity and the rigor with which they intellectually engage their Christian faith in terms of their American Evangelical heritage. In doing so, MacArthur fails to see that his 'opponents' have much more in common with his view of the world than they have in opposition to it. I would even suggest that the thinking of those he opposes is for the most part fairly traditional, albeit containing elements of pluralism and egalitarian thought that are absent from MacArthur’s thinking.

Like many fundamentalist arguments, MacArthur's discussion is fraught with contradictions, exaggerations, and tautological reasoning. While I believe he is correct in stating that objective truth exists, he fails to acknowledge that in many cases, particularly when considering ideas that fall outside the realm of empirical observation, we are incapable of knowing with any degree of certainty what that objective truth is. In his rejection of post-modern critical analysis, he denies the role of the reader in scriptural interpretation. According to MacArthur, a straightforward reading of the (English) Bible will by default lead to an understanding of truth that is self-evident and consistent with his own understanding. Such thinking inevitably blinds him to the fact that even in a 'plain-sense' reading of any text the reader brings their own understanding of the language, biases and prejudices, and conceptualizations of vague ideas that have no objective reference point.

Given MacArthur's (and his intended audience of like-minded individuals’) belief that 'The Truth' is self-evident, there is surprisingly little discussion in the book regarding what his idea of 'The Truth' actually is. Presumably, he deals with his own version of the truth in more depth elsewhere, assuming more depth is even possible. By presenting his own reading of Biblical texts as pure of bias, contamination, or interpretation MacArthur demonstrates an arrogance that makes it difficult for any thoughtful person take him seriously.

Book: Saving Darwin - How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution

Karl Giberson is an and a physics professor at an Evangelical Christian university (Eastern Nazarene College), he also accepts Darwin's theory of evolution as the best scientific description for how life on Earth came to be the way it is. While many Evangelical Christians see acceptance of evolution to be in conflict with the Christian faith, many others such as Giberson are capable of integrating an understanding and acceptance of evolution with their Christian faith.

When I picked up Giberson's book Saving Darwin, I anticipated it would follow much the same format and cover much of the same material as any number of other decent books examining the relationthisp between science and faith from a Christian perspective. That is to say that I anticipated it would demonstrate why evolution is good science, why objections to evolution are not, and how he conceptualizes his faith in light of evolution. However, Giberson takes a slightly different approach to discussing the 'conflict' between faith and science, which ultimately kept the book interesting while discussing the elements essential for such a book to be informative, and provided a longer discussion than most of the history behind the 'conflict'.

Giberson approaches the discussion of evolution and faith from a historical perspective, providing insights into the early religious objections that began as a fringe opinion among the Seventh Day Adventist sect. These objections became canonized around the turn of the 20th century during the rise of Christian fundamentalism, and have been around in great number among Evangelical Christians ever since. At the time of the publication 'The Fundamentals' pamphlet series, which defined fundamentalism for generations to come, Giberson points out that discussion of the dangers of evolution was generally coming from isolated sects of believers, and it received scant mention in 'The Fundamentals'. He suggests this is due to an understanding by the authors of 'The Fundamentals' that the issue of evolution was not critical to the Christian faith, and perhaps also due to a general acceptance of evolution as the scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Without a lot of reading into this history, I'm not entirely sure how valid this interpretation is, but I have my doubts about the marginal nature of creationist objections to evolution.

Giberson makes sure to assert the scientific validity of Darwin's theory of evolution and to point out the flaws in the main objections to Darwin's theory, he tends to offer a patient and sympathetic critique of such objections rather than simply dismissing them as intellectually dishonest positions promoted by religious crackpots who don't bother to understand the scientific method. My initial feeling was that he was probably going a little bit easy on them, but given that the purpose of the book is to promote understanding and acceptance of evolution among Evangelical Christians by demonstrating that Christianity need not be at odds with the scientific understanding of evolution, his tone makes sense.

While Giberson is careful not to step on the toes of his religious brethren who object to evolution, he is slightly more critical of those non-religious scientists who are openly critical of religion as a kind of poison to society. Giberson accurately states that the limitations in the scope of scientific inquiry make it impossible to obtain definitive scientific answers about concepts that are outside the realm of material existence, concepts such as God. However, the tone of his criticisms directed toward authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Jay Gould seems to suggest the often ugly tone of the conversation about faith and science has come primarily from the non-religious end of the spectrum. Although I share a similar religious background as Giberson, I've always felt that the negative tone started from the religious side. The reality is probably that all along the way there has been overly negative posturing from both sides of the debate coupled with ad hominem attacks and over generalized conclusions.

The final part of the book, that part typically reserved for a demonstration of how one might reconcile their faith with their scientific understanding, doesn't ever really get off the ground. The subtitle of the book 'How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution' is never directly addressed, which I find slightly odd and a somewhat disappointing aspect of this book. Giberson does discuss the flaws he sees with the theology behind young earth creationism and intelligent design, but he doesn't provide a framework by which one could begin to understand how he conceives of God. It is obvious throughout the book that his faith at one time tended towards a fundamentalist reading of the Bible and, while sometimes difficult, along the way he's been able to accomodate his understanding of science and evolution without abandoning his faith, but he isn't clear how he determines the degree to which he reads the Bible 'literally', what attributes he ascribes to God, or how he understands central Christian assertions (such as Jesus' resurrection) that appear to defy scientific understanding. Perhaps the reality is that when discussing theological assertions, there is clear manner of parsing verifiable truth from myth, or perhaps Giberson himself doesn't feel that such a grand task is within the scope of his book.