Why I Follow Jesus

I'd like to humbly share why I still place my faith (not certainty) in Jesus.

Before I do, it's vital to mention how I conceptualize faith. It looks totally different than many dogmatic, closed-minded versions out there. Faith according to the bible is having enough trust to follow. Biblical faith is about being confident enough that God is perfectly revealed in Jesus to live as if it is true. When faith is seen through this lens, and the certainty seeking paradigm is rejected, I am able to confidently follow Jesus. As I follow Jesus it seems that skepticism and doubt are reoccurring companions on the jounrey. I'm more okay with that now. Joy, hope and love walk this path as well. As one Christian journalist put it, "true religion begins in doubt and continues in spiritual exploration. Debased religion begins in fear and terminates in certainty".

It’s a great challenge to share my reasons for being a Christian in a blog post. I hesitate to try because the only way to do justice to this endeavor would be to write a novel. But no one has the time to read it. An incomplete version will have to do…..

I place my faith in Jesus because of historical, existential, philosophical, scientific and experiential reasons. These categories provide a framework to illustrate why I’m a Jesus follower amidst uncertainty, skepticism and frustration towards how many Christian communities have displayed God’s love so poorly. My reasons do not offer conclusive proof. Instead, I submit compelling pieces of evidence that following Jesus isn’t just a blind leap into a helpful myth.

Historical Influences

This might come as a surprise, but a huge reason I put my faith in Jesus is because of historical-critical reasons. History isn’t enough on its own, but it’s often the hook that keeps the rest of me in the game.

History reveals it is highly likely that Jesus was seen by others after his crucifixion. Christian and non-Christian scholars agree. Like any character or event from antiquity, it’s important to weigh evidence with four criteria. Is the evidence 1) widespread? 2) early? 3) unexpected? and 4)sincere?. John Dickson’s book Is Jesus History does a good job of fleshing out these criteria for any historical endeavor in Jesus’ time period. All four categories come out well when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus. In terms of the evidence being widespread, there are at least 3 independent sources that attest to the resurrection (1 Corinthians, gospel of Mark, gospel of John). Thus, for ancient historical standards, the evidence is quite widespread. The examples we have come very early when compared to other examples in ancient history. Mark for example is written just a few decades after Jesus’ death which is a short window of time within ancient standards. Several key sources are also unexpected. For example, Paul, a persecutor of Christians, becomes a key proclaimer of Jesus’ resurrection. And in terms of sincerity, even cursory understandings of the fate of the apostles and the early church illustrate that anyone who declared Jesus as Lord had everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Additionally, if the gospel writers were fabricating events in order to convince others of something that never happened, they did a pretty horrible job. For example, women are the first to encounter the risen Jesus. At the time women had little honor in society and their testimony often didn’t hold up in court. Also, at the end of Matthew’s gospel we are told that some disciples doubted even after seeing the Jesus after the resurrection! This is not the kind of stuff to include in a fabricated narrative. In my estimation these examples increase the likelihood the gospels are authentic.

There is good reason to feel confident that our New Testament is an accurate reflection of the original writers, therefore increasing the reliability of the scriptures. Let me illustrate. Very few of us would deny the truthfulness of what we learn about Alexander the great in our history classes. Yet, we have only 33 manuscripts (no originals, just copies of originals). The earliest was written 120 years after Alexander, and our best source was written 400 after. Conversely, we have 5,600 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. And the gospel of Mark, most scholars would agree, was written in the 60s which is only a few decades after Jesus. Matthew and Luke used another source “Q” that contained teachings of Jesus that were compiled in the 40s or 50s.

We have the best historical information on Jesus of Nazareth than we do of any other person in classical history. I’m not suggesting that these points make Jesus-following a no-brainer, but Jesus is worth serious historical investigation.

There is another historical question worth pondering: What was the evolutionary advantage of Christianity in the first few centuries of its existence? Many atheists and secular humanists declare that religion is no more than a helpful myth that allows us to cope with life. I wonder if anyone making these claims has ever studied the origins of Christianity. Declaring Jesus as Lord (and not Caesar) was often a death sentence. Christians within the first three centuries (until Emperor Constantine proclaimed Christianity the religion of the empire) endured unthinkable fates. Droves of Christians were tortured, burned, fed to wild animals, etc. Yet, in the midst of this brutal context Christianity flourished. In fact, by AD64 Christianity had grown large enough to be the scapegoat of Nero for the firest in Rom and by the end of the 1st century we know that Christianity had spread to the most remote places within the Roman Empire. And we know this from non-Christian sources (i.e. Tacitus’ Annals and a Letter from Pliny the Younger in AD112)

Existential Reasons

For most of human history, including today, a godless universe simply does not satisfy a deep longing in our hearts for meaning and purpose. This is certainly true for me.

If God doesn’t exist, why would humanity evolve over centuries to have a profound desire for meaning and purpose beyond the material? How does this make any sense? C.S. Lewis delves into this concept well in Mere Christianity. It’s an argument that I resonate with strongly. Even as I hear some the most robust and thoughtful unpacking of secular humanism (where morality and meaning are kept in view), it leaves me longing for something more. I can’t escape it. What do I do with this?

For example, I have a strong commitment to justice and compassion to the marginalized. I’m convinced it’s a true and better way to live even when it comes at personal cost. I understand that some are quick to dismiss this point by bringing up the ways this kind of lifestyle might actually come back around to benefit us (makes us feel good, impresses certain types of people, etc.). Most of these naysayers must only have experience serving in low-impact, compartmentalized ways (like a soup kitchen a couple times a year). I know I am not a good enough person on my own to care for others in radical, consistent, self-giving ways over the long haul. If you are, hats off to you. You are a better person than I. Without grounding my worldview in God I’m a different person, and it’s for the worse. Plus, where does this deep desire towards things that only decrease my bank account and my recreational time come from? Trust me, I don’t think Christians have the monopoly on beautiful acts of service. But no matter who you are, I believe it’s been hard-wired into us by a self-giving God of love.

Philosophical Reasons

Like many skeptics of religion I’m concerned about grounding our morality in religious fundamentalism. This fear is well founded. Just take a religious history course! It’s sad, infuriating and scary to see the harm that religious communities have been responsible for. Yet, every other framework for grounding morality that comes from atheism/secular humanism has left me dissatisfied. Morality offered by secular world views isn’t as universal as Sam Harris and others claim. What if what we deem as good, and therefore something all of humanity has a right to (in which we root our morality), isn’t good for future generations? What if “good” for most men is having a sexual encounter with a beautiful women yet my view of good is having a committed, exclusive sexual relationship with my beautiful wife? There are numerous tension points that bubble up immediately. Humble, convicted, Jesus-centered Christianity is the most compelling moral framework I’ve encountered that ensures all of humanity flourishes.

The more I live out the teaching of Jesus the more trustworthy He becomes. In our post-Christian society we often want the ethics of Jesus without the authority of Jesus. Concepts central to the kingdom of God (justice, love, peace, generosity, sacrifice) are concepts most people find compelling today. How do these concepts become concrete with any consistency without a God and humanity being created in His image?

Scientific Reasons

Where did the big bang come from? In other words, how could something emerge from nothing? I have yet to hear a compelling and satisfactory argument from an atheist on this point.

Even atheist Sir Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist from Oxford who worked alongside Stephen Hawking, had the humility to recognize the problem these questions pose in a recent interview:

Interviewer: There is an incredible amount of order that needs to be there for a life sustaining universe to be possible. In fact, you put a number on it…1 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. If you try to write that down and put a zero on every particle in the universe you still would not have enough zeros.

Sir Roger Penrose: Nowhere close

Interviewer: It appears as though some sort of design was there to ensure we got here?

Sir Roger Penrose: I’m agnostic on that.

I’ve actually never seriously thought that we live in a Godless universe. I understand and respect those for whom this is a key struggle. I’ve got plenty of my own doubt and skepticism, but believing the material is the only explanation for the awe inspiring, delicate, intricate natural world I’m surrounded by isn’t satisfying and doesn’t seem true.

While we are talking science, let’s bring up evolution. Many non-Christians assume that the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution delivers a decisive blow to faith in general and Christianity in particular. It’s sad that so many fundamentalist, anti-curious, anti-intellectual versions of Christianity have contributed to this assumption. For many Christians like me, evolution is a design reflecting process that is ordained and sustained by God. The false dichotomy between faith and science was erected by certain streams of Christianity and it’s time to break it down.

Experiential Reasons

I now enter the category that is quickly dismissed by most intellectual skeptics. But I think those of us that recognize the profound role experience plays are the only ones being honest.

I want the Christian story to be true. There. I said it. Not everyone thinks this way. I suspect many of the times people don’t want Christianity to be true is because they have never really encountered pure, beautiful, humble, compassionate, gracious and Jesus-centered Christians before. Because I want Christianity to be true, I encounter evidence (not proof) and it moves me towards Jesus. Others who don’t want Christianity to be true will encounter that same evidence and be totally unconvinced. Perhaps this is the way God has intentionally set things up. He has given us complete freedom to choose relationship with Him. The love of God is uncontrolling. For those who desire communion with God we can take our step of faith from a sturdy foundation. For those who don’t want it to be true, there are plenty of reasons to dismiss the idea of God.

Our emotions, experiences, social relationships and psychological make-up have a profound impact on our journey towards embracing a worldview.

Some of the biggest jerks I’ve ever met are Christians. But let’s be real, what good does it do to weigh the legitimacy of a worldview based on the worst of that group? If we applied that rubric to all of our evaluations we would live our lives never committing to anything, floating in nothingness. Instead, it’s a far more compelling criterion to look at the best of what that group produces. We ought to privilege the best examples in our evaluation while not ignoring worst. The most incredible, compelling, beautiful and compassionate people I’ve met have placed their faith in Jesus. This doesn’t mean I haven’t met some extraordinary non-Christians out there who can often exemplify love better than many Christians. But I still stand by that statement. These folks trust Jesus enough to follow him. Marta in El Salvador has spent 5 decades feeding, clothing and advocating for the poor indigenous communities in El Salvador. Eleazar adopted 12 children orphaned from Ebola in Liberia and started a school for other impoverished, hopeless children. When Cynthia isn’t teaching at school she is volunteering at the Center of Victims of Torture and tutoring Somali refugees English. These people that I’ve had relationship with make the Christian story look beautiful and true to me. There is no way they sustain these radical, unpaid, sacrificial lifestyles because they like warm and fuzzy philanthropic feelings. They reflect the desires of God.

I’ve traversed a tremendous amount of skepticism, doubt and emotional detachment from God. But I want the Christian story to be true. I’m drawn towards its beauty and its truth. If we spend our lives intellectually critiquing from the sidelines the truth and beauty quickly fades. When my doubts want to push me towards a different faith (I use this in the broadest sense…a trust that something is true and worth living by), the truth and the beauty of whatever that other faith system is seems to pale in comparison. For now I choose to stay in the game and follow Jesus with my life.

Closing

I’ve just offered an overly simplified summary of why I place my trust in Jesus. But there’s something else important to throw into the mix…

Dramatically shifting my own theology has been critical in allowing Christianity to remain compelling, intellectually viable and morally satisfactory. I’ll be honest; the theological framework I was handed (although it was handed to me by people who were far more loving, gracious and inclusive than the framework seemed to allow) just hasn’t worked for me. I tried to convince myself of something I didn’t actually believe. That’s not faith. Within this framework, even if Christianity was true, I didn’t find myself able to trust in the goodness and beauty of God. That’s a deal-breaker. I have seriously thought about walking away from faith. My skepticism and doubt seemed to overwhelm the faith that I had. But I’ve realized something critical: I would have been walking away from a certain theological framework, but that didn’t mean I had to walk away from Jesus. The Christian tradition is filled with theological diversity. Approaching the bible and theology in a new and authentic way is slowly, little by little, step by step, allowing me to see beauty and goodness I didn’t see before.

I’m always open to new people, new conversations and compelling evidence. How else are we able to live with authentic conviction? But right now I still believe Jesus is the best explanation for who God is, who I am and what the good life is really about. I’m putting myself into that story.

For some, this version of faith that I espouse seems incompatible with an intimate relationship with God. How can you passionately follow Jesus while recognizing there is a chance you could be wrong? Doesn’t opening yourself up to new evidence and being honest about your skepticism cause you to perpetually have one foot in and one foot out? Actually, I find the opposite to be true. Rejecting a certainty-seeking paradigm in exchange for a biblical framework for faith (as I’ve discussed throughout this response) causes me to commit to God on an ongoing basis. No more living vicariously through a conversion moment that happened 20 years ago. No more trying to convince myself of something I don’t actually believe. No more overly dogmatic and sheltered reactions. Instead, on an ongoing basis, I’m committing to God. I follow Jesus not because I was indoctrinated to do so. I follow him because I find Him true, beautiful and compelling. I’m actively working to cultivate trust. In my experience this is a much harder way of walking with God. I feel like I’m on a spiritual roller coaster that rises into seasons of intimacy and confidence and then plunges into long stretches of skepticism, doubt and spiritual loneliness. But it’s an authentic faith and one I desire to embody in my day to day values and practices.