Thanks, aage_rendalen.
So, let’s walk through this:
You asked five questions, which I posted above. I thought you wanted answers to them.
The title of your piece is, “Tell me why I should be a Christian.” This is another type of request, related to the five, perhaps, but different from them.
You also said, “I was hoping to to find out if it is possible to formulate the Christian faith in such a way that it will appeal to people with rationalism in their blood without resorting to the false proofs that traditional apologetics rely on.”
I didn’t know what you meant by “false proofs,” so I asked for some examples. You gave me some. They seemed like odd arguments for Christianity. They didn’t read like good apologetic responses, of the kinds with which I’m familiar, and that I consider to be more compelling and reasonable than their negations.
So, in an attempt to get more clarity, I asked how you’d define a true proof for Christianity. You’ve not answered this question. The closest you’ve come to addressing this question is where you say, “I recognize that it is not easy to come up with an answer or we would have seen it done.” Here, I think your intent is to speak about me. But I see it as speaking about you, in fact.
Now, because you are a generous and rational person, you’ll agree that my responses have been eminently rational, especially given the fact that I was unsure, exactly, what you were asking. As I’ve stated, your inquiries were expressed in a variety of ways, none of them mutually interchangeable.
However, in your last response, you said this: "I am simply asking if the Christian faith can be preached to the 21st century and if so, how would you approach it."
So, I will address this question.
As such, to begin, I think you mean, "if the Christian faith can be preached in the 21st century,” not “to” it. Or, perhaps you mean, "if the Christian faith can be preached to [people in] the 21st century.”
My answer to these questions is “Yes.”
To the question, “How would you approach it?”, I’d say, “I don’t know.”
One reason I don’t know is that I’m a writer, not a preacher. So, the issue of how to preach something is not really my area of expertise.
But I can address what I see as the “spirit,” if you will, of your question:
To me, it’s almost like you’re asking, “How would you practice medicine in the 21st century?” Medicine, like Christianity, aka “the Christian faith,” is a huge subject, with hundreds of vectors, or protocols.
So, to that question, I’d say, “It depends on what’s wrong with the patient, or prospective patient.”
In one case, I might give them an MRI. In another, I might apply maggots. In a third, I might just put my hand on their shoulder. In a fourth, I might call in a specialist and say, “What do you think?” In another, I might give them an injection of phenobarbital. In a sixth case, I might attempt to restart their heart for 45 minutes, then call their next of kin when that fails.
All of these are ways of practicing medicine in the 21st century. But what I do in a given situation depends on the context. And they all begin with the question, “So, how can I help you, today?”
So, your question is, to my ears, general and broad. It’s hard to talk about how to preach Christianity in a relevant way without first knowing your audience. That’s one lesson, for example, of Paul in Acts 17.
In other words, I see Christianity as a system, based in the core concept that God has made His home among men, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. By dying, Christ absorbed the blame for human messiness and filth, and created a shunt for sin. By accepting this gracious act, and emulating Him, we show we respect and comprehend both the size of what we’ve done against God, and of His transference. When God sees that life on Earth has reached a point of maximum recursiveness, He will end this earthly dimension, and begin an incomprehensible new one that “restarts the clock,” so to speak, on human existence, as surely as zero precedes one.
That’s how I, as a person who is not a preacher, and who aspires to the ideals of Christianity, would talk about what I believe, by faith, as I understand it.
That’s how I would do it, in general.
Now, in a specific situation, I might do something different.
If I was talking to someone experiencing deep grief because they’d lost someone, I might bring them food, and just listen to them talk about how much they missed that person.
If I was speaking to someone who felt guilty about something they’d done, I might share God’s promises to forgive every sin.
Or, referring directly to your essay, if I was speaking to an atheist who’d found meaning in life, and who wanted to know why I believe in God, I might ask him, “Why do you think you’ve found meaning in life, and on what is it based?”
But, in every case, I would “preach” Christianity, based on the context and the apparent need. Just like medicine.
Perhaps I’ve answered your question. If not, perhaps you can restate it, but more narrowly.
HA