The Gospel for Non-Christians

 Josefa de Ayala (c. 1670)

The first thing to understand is that some people don't believe in God simply because the topic has never come up in conversation. This was the case with me. Supposed proofs of the existence of God might as well be spoken in an unknown tongue to such a person. Much better to simply ask why someone does not believe in the existence of God and then take the conversation from there. Probing a person's unbelief with questions tends to be more effective (and certainly less confrontational) than directly challenging people as if trying to score points in a debate. In fact, the real audience for conventional apologetics appears to be professed believers who need some reassurance or at least some way of accounting for how they came to believe the things they now profess. I have also found that a non-confrontational approach in a predominantly  non-Christian context will sometimes invite people to seek me out and. ask me what exactly I believe and why. The following is how I respond.

We might suppose that there is no God or general organizing principle, but then how are we to appeal to such principles as Justice and Mercy? Those who would crush even their own family for personal gain might have just as much justification for their values as those who seek meaning in self-sacrificial community. Why do even animals display one or the other tendency? One might look up at the heavens with awe or indifference or witness unspeakable suffering with anguish, outrage, or indifference--but why? Might our awe beneath the wide heavens bear witness to something transcendent and might our outrage at injustice bear witness to universal values? One might dismiss such queries with the assertion that any transcendent God who truly desired that we know him (were this God even aware of us) should do better to make himself known to us, but to this I reply that such would not make any difference as will indeed be conclusively demonstrated one day.

Should a person actually believe in God after one fashion or another, I might ask whether God is any more just and loving than we ourselves. Any God so feeble as to barely exceed our own capacities surely could not have accomplished the wonders we daily observe even despite their degraded state. But what if God were truly just, truly loving, and intimately familiar with us? This of course would raise several thorny questions. Would not Justice imply Judgement, and would not Judgement imply Condemnation unless a significant degree of fudging were involved? On the other hand, would not Love imply Mercy and would not Mercy imply Forgiveness? How might the circle be squared without compromising one or the other or both at once? This is exactly the rock on which religion founders. This is also precisely what lies behind the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and glorification of the Son of Man.

God had prepared the way for his coming by raising up a nation of priests charged with proclaiming God to the world and bearing testimony over centuries to just how humanly impossible it is to meet even a modest semblance of God's standards of purity (Mosaic Law) and just how seriously the consequences of defilement, namely being cut off from communion with a pure God and ultimately from life itself. Against this backdrop, God promised to take upon himself the task of judging and punishing our sin while also showing mercy and redeeming us in the person of Jesus, the eternal God (beyond time) embodied in human form (eternal but within time) who plainly declared and literally embodied the heart and mind of God but was condemned to death by God's own priesthood as an enemy of the very God he proclaimed.

The Law had decreed that transgressions of righteousness could not be expunged except by death of the transgressor because only death dissolves all bonds, the implication being that no one is exempt from death because no one is innocent of transgression. Jesus was in himself not a transgressor but became one by receiving into himself those who surrender to him as their Lord, analogous perhaps to how a corporation is liable for the actions of its on-duty employees. Jesus thereby became responsible for the sins past and future for those who placed their trust in God alone for their justification. His death expiates our transgressions but would also have precluded his lordship because death dissolves all bonds, and so God raised him bodily from the dead, in which form he appeared and spoke to his followers, who touched him and ate with him. He then ascended to stand before God as our intercessor until he returns to judge the living and the dead. At that time, the first two chapters of scripture will come together with the last two chapters: the knowledge of God will fill the Earth, and those who are in Jesus will live just as he lives.

There was a time that I listened to various tellings of these matters with bafflement; but, as I studied the Gospels for myself, the words of Jesus struck me as words of Life; and, believing him indeed raised from the dead by the same divine power that brought forth the cosmos, I entrusted myself to him as my Lord and my Savior. I have since diligently sought the face of God in scripture to lead me through this present darkness.

Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant?
Let him who walks in darkness and has no light
Trust in the name of the Lord and rely on his God.

Behold, you who kindle a fire, who equip yourselves with burning torches!
Walk by the light of your fire and by the torches you have kindled.
This you have from my hand: you will lie down in torment.

(Isaiah 50:10-11)

My Personal Journey

Sadao Watanabe: Conversion of St. Paul (1967)

I thought that I might share how I came to know Jesus as my Lord and Savior. The external circumstances were that I grew up in the tropics in the midst of the Green Revolution in Agriculture, and I came to the U.S. to study Fisheries at Auburn University to study Marine Aquaculture. The internal circumstances, however, were that God was drawing me to himself.

My journey went through three stages: (a) Is there a God? (b) How can I know God? and (c) How can I have communion with God? The first stage was a journey of many years through exposure to animism in the Philippines and church in backwoods Alabama. My parents were generally hostile to religion, except in an anthropological sense, but had us attend church while visiting family so as not to antagonize my grandmother and perhaps even inoculate us against Christianity by exposing us to a particularly colorful variant of the sort that might be of interest to National Geographic. 

During my high-school years in Colombia, my childhood animism gradually transformed into a kind of agnosticism that contemplated the existence of a transcendent Spirit in whom I eventually placed my faith. This happened towards the end of my senior year in high school (during a sabbatical in Louisiana) on a dare by my next-door neighbor, a thorough-going theist of otherwise eclectic beliefs. This unexpected development left me disoriented, and I consulted scriptures from various traditions for guidance. I found the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching inspirational but not compelling, whereas the Gospels struck me as very direct but deeply puzzling. 

Spring of my freshman year in the United States found me struggling to understand the meaning of Romans 10:9. I felt that I this must certainly be God’s own testimony of himself, but I could not understand what it meant. I nevertheless pledged myself to Jesus but asked God to send someone around to explain everything. Sometime later, I was talking with an acquaintance who observed that I didn’t seem to have any real idea who Jesus is and offered to tell me. There followed a very involved explanation of the Fall and Salvation that spanned Genesis, Isaiah, John, and Revelation. One key moment was Isaiah 9:6, which is when I first understood that Jesus is in fact God. The second key moment was the account of the death of Jesus in John 19:28-37. At that point, I was a blubbering mess and don’t really remember much of what was said afterward. I was baptized in a public fountain on campus a few days later after learning about baptism. 

Now my focus was to pour over the Bible to bask in the magnificence of God as revealed in scripture and to begin to familiarize myself with the overall compendium of scripture. This was aided by spending the Summer in Austin, along with others in my house church, being intensively mentored in scripture, scripture memory, prayer, and personal evangelism. I dropped out of school for a semester—to my parents’ great dismay—to concentrate on processing all this, but my father convinced me to return to college, even if only to study Spanish Literature, so that I might at least have a decent education. 

What happened next left a deep and lasting impression on me. My first real introduction to the study of literature was a class in Spanish Golden Age Literature, which the professor began by describing the era as a time when a man-centered worldview had emerged from within a God-centered worldview that it increasingly challenged for supremacy. Moreover, the largely analogical mode of the God-centered worldview was giving way to the largely analytical mode that would dominate subsequent centuries. He thus cautioned us that we would not be able to grasp the literature of this period without becoming thoroughly conversant in both scripture and analogical thinking. To explain, he led us through 1 Peter 3:18-22.  

He pointed out that the image of the ark floating over the waters of the flood recalls the image of the Spirit hovering over the waters at Creation, and the ark therefore represents a promise of new creation, which corresponds to the circumcised heart of the believer buried with Christ in the waters of baptism, which symbolize death followed by resurrection in glory. There’s much more to the passage than the mere taste he gave us, but it was enough for me want to study literature instead of going to seminary because I wanted to understand the anthropology of language and literature, how they function in the world at large and what the implications might be for understanding scripture.  

The major difference between studying ordinary literature and studying scripture, of course, is that the very same Spirit who spoke to the writers of scripture speaks to us as well, and he is perfectly capable of using even a bad translation of a flawed manuscript to communicate basic points, which are validated to the extent that the meaning of all scripture becomes increasingly straightforward and coherent.