Restoring Apologetics to Evangelism, Part 2

Problem: Evangelism based on personal testimony ties the validity of our conversion to our subjective experience.

This quote from an article I wrote on Tony Campolo sums it up:

Campolo admits that his own conversion resulted in a temporary zeal that lasted but a month, and that others have told him the same. [GOI 26-7] He also notes – but seems unconcerned – that converts who used to be addicts compare their conversion experience to “a psychedelic high, but without the drugs” [GOI 24]. 

Such comparisons should warn Campolo that what he is seeing in such experiences is likely to simply be manufactured, merely emotional reactions to a momentous life decision – but it does not.

I think most of us have met Christian friends who are “down” for one reason or another – whether it be personal tragedy, or sin, or just ho-hum daily depression of the non-clinical sort. We have also found that it is as such low points that people frequently question their salvation. “I don’t feel saved” is a line we may have heard. Or, “I just don’t feel close to God right now.”

Personal testimony, as a means of evangelism, is at the root of this disconnect. It tells us that when we become Christians, we will “feel” cleansed of our sins, and have a “personal relationship” with Jesus as though he were a friend. Certain Skeptics, like Robert Price in particular, have framed this in terms of Christians having Jesus as an “imaginary friend.” They are not often right – but in this case, the truth hits close to home.

In contrast, our faith should be rooted not in subjective experience, but objective history. If Jesus rose from the dead, and that is historically sure, then personal tragedy and the like must be interpreted in light of that history.

To use an example I’ve used before, let us suppose that the freedom of America, and our freedom as Americans, was dependent on the historic fact of Washington crossing the Delaware River. How absurd would it be for an American citizen to say they “don’t feel like an American” because of some personal tragedy they have experienced, or because they may have broken a law or committed some misdemeanor? Although the latter may result in a restriction on freedoms within our rights and identities as Americans (just as sin causes us to lose rewards in heaven, or perhaps here on earth), it does not make us non-Americans, or does not mean America is obliged to be returned to England. Such a view would be nonsensical.

Of course, a person who is committed to irrationality could easily deny a historical event or its significance anyway, but the key here is “committed to irrationality.” The point is that subjective experience as a basis for salvation enables a far easier road to denial and doubt.

Note as well: I am not saying that the “historical model” is a 100% ironclad guarantee that faith will not be jettisoned or weakened in the face of tragedy, sin, etc. There is no such thing as a 100% ironclad guarantee in this framework, because free will never leaves the equation. But I do say it will provide far better grounding that the subjective experience model which personal testimony engenders.

It is for that reason, as well, that personal testimony ought to be abandoned as our primary model for evangelism. But we still have three reasons more to go, and the next one will be posted next week.

**

I'll add here in light of comments by my good buddy Joe...none of this is meant to say you can't have some role for personal experience. It is meant to say that such personal experiences shouldn't be the sole or leading basis for your faith-decision. If anything, it should be an invitation to research and support that experience with objective grounding.  

I don't have any real use for an experience-based model. But if it works for you, use it -- and use it responsibly. (An example of someone who does not use it responsibly: John Bevere, who has turned his  personal experiences into a 24/7 Holy Spirit Hotline.)

Comments

Joe Hinman said…
200 studies from peer reviewed academic journals showing the validity of religious experience. Religious experience is not subjective it's inter subjective.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
just so there's no MISSunderstanding don;t take thqt as criticism of your view.I understand your concerns,I agree that apologetic can't just be based in warm fuzzzy stories.
J. P Holding said…
That's fine, Joe. I don't say the experience is not valid. I just say it doesn't have the utility of the objective measure.
Weekend Fisher said…
I've put in 2 cents over on my blog.
http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2017/05/should-christians-share-personal.html

Take care & God bless
WF
Joe Hinman said…
thanks for your comment Anne, good to see you here

weekend fisher's link





J. P Holding said…
1) "the woman at Jacob's well spoke of her life story as a launching point in talking about Jesus"

That's hard to accept as a parallel. Apart from being a pre-Resurrection event, there's no sign that the woman converted to any new set of propositional beliefs. Furthermore, she was only certifying to Jesus' knowledge as a prophet, and it was the same day. How much of a personal testimony can you get out of less than a few hours as a convert?


>>There are many people that Jesus healed who are said to have told people what God had done for them.

Again, this is not personal testimony. If anything it's the sort of evidential testimony I think needs to replace the standard "Jesus changed my life" personal testimony.

>>>Also in the Bible, St. Paul goes into his personal life plenty of times

And in the passages you allude to, as you say, he is speaking to Christians. That's not even evangelism, much less what we call personal testimony. What he's doing there has to do with the honor dictates of that society more than anything else; Paul was responding to criticism of himself by ideological foes.

>>>I think that whether we talk about our lives depends on whether it connects with the people in the conversation.

That's fine as an adjustment to the modern world. But let's be clear that there's no Biblical model to support it whatsoever. It is not the model for evangelism in the New Testament in any sense. In fact, members of collectivist societies would find this whole idea of "connecting with people" to be strange and foreign.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?