Wednesday, December 30, 2009

believe the lie?

First, imagine a conversation that goes something like these...

A husband to his wife: "Honey, I know that when we were married, you made vows to me, saying you'll remain faithful to me, and I do appreciate that you said those things. But I've come to think that, really, my faith in you would be much more robust and stronger if I think that you didn't really mean those vows. In fact, if I were to come home tonight, and find you in bed with another man (or woman, as I am a postmodern open-minded man), my faith in you would not be shaken one bit. You see, if I really believed you meant your words of binding faithfulness, any slip on your part would be devastating to me, and would make me lose my faith in you. But if I doubt what words, no matter how well intended they may have been, you're slip would not bother me at all, and would in fact merely confirm that my faith is really in you and not in what you say."

Once you've recovered from that feeling of surrealism, consider these real words from comments written by someone in a debate on another blog in which I have participate lately.

I once held the same opinions you and your friends here are putting forth. I no longer do and I am the better for it. I can honestly say that if the Virgin Birth were proven in some way to be false my faith would not falter in the least. That is Bells (and Tony’s) point. But perhaps that is too “meaty” for some.

No one is denying anything. Rather, I would argue that the faith of these pastors you guys are in a huff about is deeper and stronger than the faith of those who fear their entire lives would crumble if the Virgin Birth turned out to be a myth.

It's sometimes instructive to put ideas into another into another situation, because often it will show more plainly how shallow and false the ideas are. Would we really consider a man who doubts his wife's vow of marital fidelity to really love her? Would it not rather show how shallow his love really is? Should she find his words impressive, or insulting?

So, too, should we be impressed by how much "deeper and stronger" it is to doubt the virgin birth of Christ? Should it be considered "meaty" to say that if this account should be proven false, then one's faith would still stand? What does it say about that faith, if it's foundation is proven to be lies?

It was Paul who said that if Christ was not raised from the dead, then our faith is vain, and why should be believe. No doubt, the person I've quoted above would think that approach of Paul's not meaty enough.


Anonymous said...

Your blog was confusing and rambling. I didn't quite follow your example of marriage infidelity and the point you were attempting to make. Your final point that our faith should be based on the truth rather than a falsehood is correct. However many events such as the virgin birth are not provable. We can only go on the testimony of the few that recorded those early events and trust that they were telling the truth.

jazzact13 said...

That's fair, I'll try to explain things a bit better.

In the excerpts from the debate on the other blog, the one saying those things was claiming that doubting that the biblical account of the virgin conception and birth of Jesus is factually true (that may not be what really happened) actually leads to a deeper faith then believing it.

My point in giving the example of the man speaking to his wife, claiming that his doubts of her vows of marital fidelity leads to a deeper love for her, is to show that such thinking is, inherently, ridiculous and contradictory. The man in the example essentially calls his wife a liar, then praises himself for his deeper and richer faith in her. I hope it's pretty evident how wrong such a man's thinking is.

So, too, is the thinking that a person could call God a liar and still claim to have a deeper faith in Him; rather, it shows a decided lack of faith, a faith shallow and weak.

Or, to put it in a way I have seen in the Bible, "Let God be true, and every man a liar".