A man questioning his fundamentalist upbringing, part 3

George:

First, the defensibility of Christianity. What I mean is that we have answers. People ask, “Why are we here?” and we have answers. We have answers about why homosexuals ought not to marry, why animals do not have rights, why people fly airplanes into buildings, why tsunamis kill children and why there are so many people groups. You find answers to those questions just in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

The world also has answers, but its answers change as its authority shifts with new moods, new trends and new information.

One of the foundational parts of Christian belief is the origin of the universe. No, the six-day creation is no more reproducible in a lab than is the evolutionary model. Either position springs from the worldview of its proponent. What we have, however, is trust in the word of a God who has backed up everything he says (starting with his promise of death to Adam if he ate of that tree).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was not only witnessed by more than five hundred people, its reality has been shown in the dramatic change in the lives of those witnesses as well as those of us who, having not seen, still love him. Jesus did offer a personal touch to Thomas, but pronounced a blessedness on those who have not seen and yet believed. Even the famous American agnostic Charles Templeton, who denied the deity and lordship of Christ, claimed to adore Jesus (The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel). I wonder where he got his information about Jesus?

I’m not telling you that God could never speak to you audibly, but can you love him and trust him if he does not? The qualifications required for such an appointment are pretty rough, as Job, Moses and Elijah would tell you. Confidence comes from trusting the one you cannot see. Peace of mind comes from obeying the one you cannot see (the reward of a clear conscience). Seeing God in the everyday comes from believing that he is, and that he is the rewarder of those who earnestly seek him.

Consider this: God was not absent when the priests carrying the ark of the covenant stepped into the flooded waters of the Jordan. I do not think you can even say that his action was dependent on their action (good theology forbids such a man-centered approach). But God had decreed not to part the waters until they obeyed and stepped in. Likewise there was perceived risk for three young men in a fiery furnace and a pregnant teenager who had never slept with a man looking at a sentence of stoning. Here is the point (here I go prying): Is it possible you are wanting God to perform when the burden of proof should be on you?

The providential acts of God in human history demonstrate that he is no absentee landlord. Did you ever consider that if there is even one renegade molecule (R. C. Sproul’s words) in the entire universe outside of the sovereign control of God, we cannot trust him?

No, I do not think the problem here is that God is too silent. He left us Moses and the prophets (and the rest of a unified 66 books). I can honestly tell you that I have too much delight in getting to know him by delving through what he has already said to go looking for more.