How Defending Our Faith Weakens Our Witness.
On Origen, and how defending the faith weakens its argument.
Today’s post is a bit different and not centered on Revelation. I’ve been at the Jesus Collective ‘Unite’ conference in St. Paul, Minnesota, so I’ve taken the week off from studying Revelation. Next week, I’ll be back as we dive into Chapter 6 and the opening of the first seal from the scroll we glimpsed in Chapter 5.
In other news, I’ve been working on a project with Scot McKnight for the last year and a half, and I’ll be sharing about that soon. In the meantime, here is a piece I’ve wanted to write for a while. It concerns the role (or lack of a role) that apologetics plays in my life these days.
Here we go.
The Urge to Enter the Arena
You know the feeling. Someone will show up in your social media feed or your comments claiming something that the Bible is a harmful book that should be left in the past. Or perhaps they talk about the Apostles pejoratively, essentially straw-manning and heroically knocking them down and claiming victory. Perhaps you know better. You know why their argument holds no water, and you know exactly how to debunk their arguments. So, do you jump in the fight or not?
There was a time when I might have plunged headlong into the fight, rumbling with their ideas, showing them how they had misread an ancient text with modern eyes or made false assumptions that had distorted their ability to grasp the writer's message.
But I have come to have a change of heart here. I no longer find it fruitful to defend my faith, and I'd like to talk about why. No original thought changed my mind, but rather, a good reading of the church fathers accomplished this change of heart within me. Ironically, the first few chapters of Origen's apologetic writing, Against Celsus, entirely changed my thinking on apologetics.
Origen's book, written in AD 248, is a response to accusations against Christians by a pagan philosopher named Celsus. In the introduction to Book 1, Origen couches his argument in the context of Jesus standing before Pilate in the Gospel of Matthew. Here's the opening line:
"When false witnesses testified against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, he remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought against Him, He returned no answer, believing that His whole life and conduct among the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the false testimony, or than any formal defense against the accusations."1
In the first chapter, Origen points out that everyone in the room at Jesus' trial seems to know that the accusations against him for which he is standing trial are false. "And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Do you answer nothing to what these witness against you? But Jesus held His peace." Jesus continued to hold his tongue in the face of false words "insomuch that the governor marveled greatly."2
Origen goes on to argue in part 2 of his introduction that Jesus was capable of defending Himself "and to show that He was guilty of none of the charges... so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more honorable judgment regarding Him." Origen even argues that it is likely that the judge would have let Him go if he had indeed said a simple word or two of defense. Natural wisdom assumes that Jesus should have defended Himself.
But what has effected me most over the years is Origen's argument that:
"even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defense in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness."
Origen says that it is not with words that Christians argue the truth of their position, but with deeds. The argument that Christianity is true cannot be made through words because it is not a system of beliefs but rather a pattern of life ordered around Jesus. I have heard it said recently that, where society once wondered about whether or not Christianity is true, it now wonders if Christianity is good. No matter how true you may argue that Christianity is, once it is no longer perceived as good, then it has become unbelievable.
A faith that is not good and that does not produce a good and loving person filled with compassion and mercy is untrue. In fact, any words we might use to defend Christianity, Origen argues, actually weaken its position. Here are his words:
"This apology which you require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defense of Christianity which rests on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception."3
The Christian is the argument for the truth of Jesus. If the Christian is not like their Christ, then no argument can (or should) be made to convince others to draw near and believe in it. There is no argument strong enough to overcome a dysregulated, unordered, angry, bitter, and selfish Christian. There are no facts that can convince an unbeliever to embrace the views of one filled with hatred and condemnation, and there is no honest reason why a faith that produces such people should be defended at all.
You, my brothers and sisters, are the argument. We inherently point away from ourselves when we point to something else as the most convincing argument. If we cannot point inwards, to the peace, love, and joy that our faith has cultivated within us, then — Origen argues — perhaps we should not point at all.
The silence of Jesus forces those standing by to examine his deeds instead. His silence also speaks loudly of his disagreement with the entire system that allowed him to stand trial in the first place. It exposes injustice and makes it obvious to everyone in the room that they were the ones who did not have truth on their side, which is why they were forced to invent lies.
For these reasons and more, I choose to spend my days teaching the writings of the Apostles instead of defending them. The fruit of the tree both justifies and identifies its existence. For me, that is enough.
Against Celsus, introduction, 1
ibid
ibid, 3
Strong! 💪
If we cannot point inwards, to the peace, love, and joy that our faith has cultivated within us, then perhaps we should not point at all.
Brilliantly written. I do not fight to defend the Christian faith anymore as my connection to it has diminished quite a bit for many reasons; with that said, however, one of the most simplistic understandings I gained in my years as a worship leader and other things, was the idea of knowing a tree by its fruit. The fruit being love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, fruitfulness, gentleness and self-control. These things are the identifiers, the separation points of the Christian witness that give it validity in ways more powerful than arguing to prove a point. From ‘let your light shine so all men may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven’ to ‘do everything without complaining and arguing so you may shine like stars in a crooked and depraved generation’… the script for this has always been there. The taste for power, plaudits and popularity in empire are too vast and enthralling though it seems. Yet even again ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord or over them and their officials flaunt their authority. Not so with you, instead who wants to be great among you must be your servant and whoever wants to be first must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to GIVE his life as a ransom for many’. It’s always been right there yet so incredibly unseen.