Faith, and preparing for discussions and debates
 Regular Network Norwich and Norfolk columnist James Knight looks at how to effectively engage in discussions about Christianity. This is the second part in the Spreading the Good News series.
In this message I want to do two things; I want to offer you some essential knowledge that will hopefully help you to be more effective witnesses in debates and discussions, but before I do that, I want to look at ‘faith’, as it is one of those words that many post-modern secular minds abhor.
Defending faith
As Christians trying to spread the good news of Christ, we would be wise to remember that many things pertaining to the word ‘faith’ have been severely misrepresented in much of modern day thinking; therefore we are not in the same position as, say, a salesman trying to sell a product or an ideologist trying to champion a particular set of principles - with ‘faith’ issues we must be prepared to be met with a few cold shoulders unless we can show how this modern day view of ‘faith’ has weak rationale underlying it1.
1For a fuller analysis of what ‘faith’ really means, and why the contemporary viewpoint is in my view specious, see my recent article ‘Getting To The Real Truth About Faith’, which you can find on my columns page here.
When we talk about having faith with Christianity, we should make ourselves fully aware of how our correspondent views the word ‘faith’, for there are, when discussing this matter, really two kinds of faith. On the one hand, faith means assenting to believe something is true; it is a belief in something; thus to the man who has experienced both God and science, belief in God could be taken to mean the same as belief in the verities of science - in other words, it is a notional faith based on experiences. But the second definition of faith is ‘to trust’. I trust in Christianity because the God to whom I am assenting has revealed Himself to me in many different ways, just as I trust the edifice of science (as a whole) because science has shown itself to be reliable, and in technology, innovation and advancement I have evidence that science works.
Now it is quite possible to have the first kind of faith without the second, but it is not possible (to any sane mind) to believe in the second without believing in the first; that is to say, no sane man would trust science without believing it to be reliable or trust God without believing in God - both would be absurd. But equally, you can have the first type of faith without being at all religious - without attaching yourself to one particular denomination. And it should be said that when Christians are thinking of spreading the good news, they do not have to convince people who have both the first and second kinds of faith. Those who have a static form of first kind of faith but not the second will sometimes prove to be the hardest to convert, for they will often think that their belief in God is enough to see them all right in the end.
Rational enquiry into a particular subject will very often produce the first type of faith, and if the enquiry provides sufficient reasons to assent to the second kind of faith, then a man would be perfectly reasonable in assenting. In other words, one must have a justifiable cause for the second kind of faith, and very often the first kind of faith can provide this - so long as it is supported by something more substantial than faith alone. And that is precisely what Christianity offers to those who look to find the first kind of faith with the hope of acquiring the second kind; that is, once faith of the first kind has been acquired, God will reveal Himself in a way that produces the second kind of faith - once we know He is active in our lives, we shall learn how to trust Him, and with greater experience will come greater trust, as we observe the positive things that He does in our lives.
This is the system of action attached to faith, one that is a corollary of both kinds of faith. It is the act of surrender; living your life in a way that would please God. This type of conviction does not automatically follow as a result of the first two kinds of faith - it is, in fact, very often the hardest step to take. But God is very gracious, and after having acquired the first two kinds of faith, a man can pray to God that He will help him assent to His will and His ultimate purposes for the future relationship. In other words, the first two kinds of faith together are what offers certainty to those who are able to assent and turn faith into action. God helps a man to become the person He wants him to be. We are described by St Paul as new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17) when we have come to know God; thus the real knowledge of God is found deep in our own cognition and is, thus, knowable to any that come to realise who He is.
And this is what we are called to teach those who are unaware of the true nature of faith. No analytical reasoning alone will lead to God, only a genuine desire to find the truth (coupled with reasoning) can do this. Admittedly, this feeling can only be described by the emotions it arouses in us, therefore it is difficult for a Christian to convey to a non-Christian the exact point that one knows the difference. And if this surprises you, you should think about the general effects of transposition, and you will soon realise, far from being a blemish on the Christian faith, that no feeling or experience can be described except in relation to its effects on the individual’s psychology. Therefore it is certainly true that only those who know God can be certain of His existence, for only those who know God really know about providential awe.
Whenever we encounter those that abhor the word ‘faith’, we must help them to see a clearer picture of reality by pointing out that their epistemological framework needs shifting a little bit; for one must remember that the conditions under which we postulate a ‘relationship with God’ require two things; 1) that some initial faith will be necessary if we are to progress to the next epistemological step, and 2) once we reach that step we shall have a much more tangible awareness of God’s presence and the work that He is doing in our lives. Moreover, one of the central tenets of Christianity is the insistence that faith is going to be necessary for some things, therefore it is quite naïve and disingenuous for the non-believers to question the validity of Christianity on any of the grounds already contained within it - as we shall see in the next section of this message where I introduce the very important debating clause.
Preparing for discussions and debates
Now as this is only the second message in the series, I’m going to talk about one of the most essential issues in debates and discussion between Christians and non-Christians - for here is something vitally important that every Christian must consider, if you haven’t before (and in my experiences, most haven’t). Anybody that partakes in discussions and debates, either in person or online, needs to absorb this - it will save you so much time, it will help you avoid lengthy debates in sterile areas, it will help you reach more fruitful areas of progression much more quickly, and it will help you to avoid extraneous back and forth issues and get right into the heart of the matter. And if you are unsure how highly you should estimate this ‘clause’, I should like to tell you that I have watched or listened to hours of debates involving so-called experts in the fields of religion and science, on whether or not God exists and whether Christianity is the truth, and can tell you that approximately 90% of the content was little more than redundant oscillations as they overlooked the ‘clause’, bypassed the cardinal issues and persisted with many subjects that had no relevance to the central topics of whether God exist or whether Christianity is the truth.
So what is this essential ‘clause’ of which I speak and claim is so important? It is what I call the ‘commutative clause’, which stipulates that when it comes to arguing against the validity of your interlocutor’s belief system (or he, yours), there must be no commutation between contentions on either side without recourse to an external agent or contention. A simple illustration will show what I mean.
Imagine Bob and Frank sitting together in a room with no one else around but yourself
 Bob: Did you know that George went to Paris last year?
Frank: No he didn’t, in fact, he told me this year that he’s never been abroad. The only holiday he had last year was in Blackpool.
Bob: No, you’re wrong, I know he went to Paris because I saw a picture of him standing in front of the Eiffel Tower.
Frank: No, you’re confused, I’ve seen the picture to which you refer, and it’s a picture of him in front of BLACKPOOL tower, not the Eiffel Tower.
Bob: But I’m sure he sent us a postcard from Paris; it had a picture of the River Seine on it.
Frank: Show it to me and I’ll believe you.
Bob: I can’t, I think I threw it out a couple of months ago.
...and so on, and so on
Let us say that you are a third party listening in; however long Frank and Bob spend arguing, it is clear that you cannot find out with any degree of satisfaction whether George went to Paris or Blackpool without seeking an external agent, someone or something that can verify one way or the other. This is the all-important ‘commutative clause’ - the vital fact being that all types of investigation are underpinned by this clause. It is strange that something which seems so obvious when stated like that is overlooked by the majority of people when it comes to debate between Christians and non-believers.
The situation is, however, a little different in a debate between a Christian and a non-believer than it is in the above illustration, because there are many aspects to the Christianity/atheism debate that cannot be verified by an external agent. But the important thing is this; the ‘commutative clause’ says that a man cannot reject his interlocutor’s contentions under the interlocutor’s premises (and vice-versa), therefore all arguments about which position is the correct one must be resolved outside of the two sets of premises.
Here’s an example. Let us say that in a debate between a Christian and a non-believer the contentions of the Christian are packaged and represented by #1 and the contentions of the non-believer are represent by #2. Clearly when one is arguing for #1, his interlocutor cannot reject #1 under the premises of 2#, just as the inverse situation would also be amiss. Therefore the only way to see which of 1# or 2# is right is to agree on the acceptance that if #1 were right, the conditions under which #1 were postulated would pertain to #1 primacies, and the same for #2. In other words, if #1 is right then things contained within #1 (supernaturalism, miracles, knowledge of God) must be right, therefore the man postulating #2 premises must accept this beforehand, as must the man postulating #1 premises with regard to the premises in #2.
Now here’s the rub; the only way to show the errors in either #1 or #2 is if #1 is inconsistent with #1 predicates or #2 is inconsistent with #2 predicates. A good example is when you tell someone that you have seen, say, a miraculous healing - categorised in #1, where miracles periodically happen - your non-believing interlocutor cannot sensibly reject it using the claim that it contravenes #2 - because under conditions #2, divinely inspired supernatural miracles are not possible - his method of argument is self-defeating. You will be surprised how far two people can get if all of the foregoing is realised, but if you want to get anywhere you must help people rid themselves of bad habits - contravening the all-important ‘commutative clause’. Your job as a Christian is to point out the inconsistencies between ‘#2’ and ‘#2 predicates’ - and that is what your interlocutor must attempt to do with #1 - not reject them under #2 conditions.
You will be startled to find that most ‘contentious issues’ or ‘contentions against Christianity’ contravene the ‘commutative clause’ and are, thus, inadequate when it comes to arguments against the Christian faith. I hope you have understood the ‘commutative clause’ properly, as it is of such vital importance. But in case you haven’t, let me put it another way. Take some of the most popular objections to Christianity...
1) An all-loving, all-powerful God wouldn’t allow suffering in the world.
2) Some of the Old Testament verses are shocking and barbaric.
3) The virgin birth and other miracles contradict science.
4) Many wars have been started in the name of ‘Christianity’.
5) God’s existence should be more obvious than it is.
Now the Christian very obviously does not see them as valid objections, in fact, under #1 conditions, regarding the above objections, all of the following is true:
1) God is all-loving and all-powerful, yet has decided to allow suffering.
2) God had His reasons for acting as He did in the Old Testament.
3) The virgin birth does not contradict science because scientific objections to the virgin birth (and other such miracles) are unsound from the outset.
4) Clearly the people starting wars were not acting in accordance with Christ’s will.
5) There are perfectly good reasons why God chooses to reveal Himself in the way that He does.
This shows quite clearly that the objections contravene the ‘commutative clause’, because the non-believer is attempting to argue against #1 premises under #2 conditions. We can see how erroneous it is if we switch it round the other way and instead of showing what it would take to prove the non-believer right, we can show what it would take to prove him wrong. Under his #2 conditions miracles are impossible, and as we have seen, merely arguing for their impossibility is an infraction of the ‘commutative clause’, as the premises in #1 state that miracles can, and do, happen. The external agent necessary for him to change his position would be if he were to observe, to his satisfaction, something miraculous. Then he would find the inconsistency in #2 that he was looking for, because under #2 conditions miracles cannot happen, yet his experiences have gone on to show that #2 is incorrect.
For a successful conclusion to be reached in debate and discussion, both parties must look for similar inconsistencies in the sets of premises of both #1 and #2. It is no use arguing any other way. From now on, when you hear objections like the ones above, or others like it, consider carefully whether they contravene the ‘commutative clause’, and equally importantly, consider yourself whether your own Christian apologetics also contravenes the same clause; for in doing so you will improve your chances of winning the debate and convince your interlocutor of his or her errors. When one enters into debates or discussions with non-believers, the principal objective is not to become embroiled in oscillatory ‘back and forth’ arguments out of which nothing is really achieved. If you really want to get to the heart of the matter you must show how your interlocutor’s #2 premises are inconsistent with the world in which he or she lives; for unless you can achieve this your debates and discussions will not be very fruitful – or at least, not as fruitful as they could be.
Even if I were to stop here the message would have been worthwhile, but there is something even more remarkable to consider - a corollary of what we have just seen - because one might justifiably ask the following question: “As #1 and #2 embody the premises of both parties respectively, are there any contentions on either side that DO NOT contravene the all-important commutative clause”? It seems there are not, as both #1 and #2 seem to take care of things. Therefore, does that mean I can safely contend that the following two statements are true?
Statement 1: Objections to Christianity, such as, say, ‘Why is there suffering’? ‘Why is there evil’? ‘Why does Hell exist’? And ‘Why hasn’t God made His existence more obvious’?, seem to be nothing more than emotional and psychological objections (often for understandable reasons, with which many of us can sympathise).
Statement 2: Objections to Christianity, such as ‘Miracles are impossible’ and ‘The Bible is internally inconsistent’ seem to be nothing more than objections based on misinformation and miseducation.
I asked if I could contend that the two statements are true. Certainly not! That is the power of the clause, it has no favourites, and rightly so. Now I do happen to think that statement 1 and statement 2 are both true, but as soon as I make that contention the ‘commutative clause’ trips me up, because both statement 1 and statement 2 are only true if #1 is correct - if #2 is correct then statements 1 and 2 are unsatisfactory.
So having admitted this, where do we go from here? Well, the truth of the matter is this: the only satisfactory way for a man to change position from non-believer to Christian is if he himself experiences Christ. In other words, if the clause gives the difficulty that it does, the man defending #2 can only find the evidence he is looking for if he himself has an inner-revelation or if God works inside him in a way that will give him a clearer perspective.
This boils down to an even more astounding fact; when Christ says ‘seek and you will find’ and ‘knock and door will be opened’ He means that for the hardest sceptics that is the only way that they can be convinced that He is Lord - after all, if only those that have the Spirit can call Him Lord, it must be true that at the debating level there will always be a residual kernel of doubt in the minds of any sceptics if they have not experienced the ‘spark’ from Christ. Our Lord did not encourage us to seek because He thought it happened to be one of many expeditious ways of finding the truth - He encouraged us to ‘seek’ and ‘knock’ because He knows that this is the only way that a man can shatter all of his doubts; after all, the best way to convince the sceptic that Christianity is true is to set him the ultimate challenge, roughly as follows: “Mr sceptic, if you yourself could say that Jesus is who He says He is, you would call Him Lord; and if you could call Him Lord, you would find yourself arguing on our side rather than that of the non-believer”.
Here we have uncovered one of the most important aspects of witnessing, and in doing so, seen clearly what we need to do in order to lead the sceptics in the right direction. Once this is realised; that is, once we know where we must lead our interlocutors and how the debates can be resolved, we shall give ourselves the best chance of winning hearts and minds to the glory of Christ Jesus.
Despite the fact that there are instances where God reveals Himself to individuals ‘out of the blue’, a more general truth is that one has to ‘want to discover the truth’ and to ‘have an open mind’ - for only then will we be successful in spreading the good news. Therefore much of our work ahead does not simply lie in ‘true or false’ discussions (although they are important), it lies in our showing people why they need Christ, and what He can add to their lives. In effect, we are trying to help them change their desires to accord with Christ’s truth; that is, we are helping them to ‘want to discover the truth’ and to ‘have an open mind’ - for only then will we be successful in spreading the good news.
Next week I will look at the winning methods that are underpinned by the message of Christ.
The views carried here are those of the author, not of Network Norwich and Norfolk, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below, upon the ideas expressed here. You can also contact the author direct at james.knight@norfolk.gov.uk
James is a Norwich local government officer, author and Proclaimers church member in Norwich. You can access his current collections of columns here
Meanwhile, if you want to find out more about Christianity, visit: www.rejesus.co.uk |
