For many years, my friend John has been inviting me (and others) to their Church's Alpha Course. I finally acquiesced last night. It was actually the second in a series of ten sessions, but I missed the first one - although I caught up by reading the first chapter in their book/course guide. The theme of this session was "Who Is Jesus?".
The evening started at 6:15pm sharp, when we were invited to sit down and have dinner. The meal was prepared by the Lutheran Church people, and they even made me a special, vegetarian version of what everybody else was having (chili). It was good, simple food. I couldn't help but notice that we were sitting at tables - four in all - divided up by gender. I didn't think much of that last night, but this morning I am finding that a bit unusual - maybe it's to keep the men from dominating conversation or intimidating the women?
After the dinner, we were invited into the Church sanctuary for some initial "hymns" and the video presentation of Nicky Gumbel (the current curator of the Alpha movement). I have to say that the initial hymns/songs presuppose that the audience is already a church goer. For someone who doesn't go, and doesn't believe, I find this to be a strange recruitment tactic. A more enlightened reason about the purpose for the songs comes to me later in the session.
Nicky Gumbel is a very charismatic speaker. His arguments for the existence of Jesus, and for him being "the way", are very compelling - but only to an audience who are already fans; "preaching to the choir" comes to mind. Nicky's version of "proof" and my version of "proof" are very different. I found myself fidgeting in my seat whenever he would use the text in the New Testament as "proof" of something claimed in the New Testament. All of the claims of Jesus are documented in one "book" (actually, a collection of books we call the New Testament). No actual person who was living at the time of Christ, outside of this book, ever wrote anything down, even though there were thousands of events to document. Gumbel brings up Josephus and others. These people were born after Jesus died (Josephus, 37AD), and the authorship is now called into question (Josephus' writing about Christ was Christian, although he was actually a zealous Jew). The author Philo was born before Christ, died many years after Jesus' death, and lived in the neighborhood. Not one word from him.
Gumbel talks about "fulfillment of prophesy" as proof that Jesus existed. I can find two problems with this argument - and I never thought about it until last night (so how hard can it be to find problems). First, the New Testament was written after Jesus died. It wouldn't take much editorializing to insert "prophesies" into the text after the fact. Second, there isn't a single "prophesy" in the Old Testament that couldn't be made or fulfilled by a first century man. I see them like horoscopes. So vague and general in their writing, that you can make them fit any event you wish. If he had made a prophesy like "there is a new land across the ocean (North or South America)" - then you'd have something. Or maybe if the Aborigines of Australia knew of Christ before Europeans went there (some 1800 years after the fact).
Overall, after watching Gumbel for about forty minutes, I was ready to stop listening and start talking (even though I don't talk that well). When we sat at our table, I asked for some idea as to the background of everyone there - in the continuum of atheist to committed Christian, I thought it was reasonable to assume that we would all fall somewhere on that spectrum. I was surprised to find out that John's old friend Harry and I were the only two "non-believers", and everybody else was a confirmed, deliberate Christian. Again, I found it strange that people who already believe they know the answer to the big question, and will not "change their minds" because of this event, would attend. John said that many Christians take the course, and many more take it multiple times. I don't get it.
Our conversation was to start around some talking points that John had in front of him. Both Harry and I remained firm in our disbelief, and the rest of the crowd would bring up points as to why they believed. I can't see the logic in their arguments, but Harry and I agree that Christianity is a force to be understood, if not agreed with. I'm trying, but again I just don't get it.
One of the reasons for belief that came out was from John. He said he was impressed by how integrated the New Testament was, and how pieces of a story in one place would make sense, fit, and be expanded on somewhere else. I could explain most of this by a single, originating text for all of the Gospels. John sees these consistencies, whereas the committed Atheists of the world would see inconsistencies all over the place. We would say it's obviously a case of too many writers and not enough editorial control. I believe we only got to half of the prepared questions before the discussion was brought to an end at 8:45pm.
Overall, the evening ended in a stalemate, pretty much as I expected. I'm not moved by any of their arguments, and they're not moved by any of mine. I think this way of approaching "the truth" is like seeing trees instead of a forest. My belief is that we know so much more than we ever did and our understanding of things once believed the sole province of God has expanded so much, that the room for first century thinking, despite it's longevity, is past.
I'll go to session three, "Why Did Jesus Die", even though a big part of me thinks "doesn't everybody?".
No comments:
Post a Comment