Postmodern Approach

“‘I do not intend to ask whether Christianity is “true” or “false,” or to establish, for example, the former hypothesis.’ Yet the work is explicitly about Christianity.”

-Christina Gschwandtner analyzing a quote by Michael Henry

In Christina Gschwandtner’s book “Postmodern Apologetics?” she provides short introductions to several philosophers who’ve played a massive role in shaping the philosophical understanding of religion in the last hundred years. The above quote is in the opening section of her analysis of the philosopher Michael Henry’s conception of “Truth.” Henry’s conception of the “Truth of Christianity” is discussed at length but addressing whether Henry believes Christianity is “True” never occurs.

So far, this is what I have done on this blog. I have not once, nor have I intended to, prove or disprove Christianity. Like Henry, Christianity’s value was taken as a given, and entertaining whether it was true or false did not matter. Even my first article “God is Experience” does not argue for or against Christianity. I write at length about how I perceive God, and I attack common Christian conceptions of God, but I stay away from even asking the question of whether or not Christianity brings someone to conceptualize God in this way. The framework of Christianity was not to be disturbed.

I believe the flaws in my approach became obvious in my final article, “Biblical Marriage,” wherein I conclude the piece by saying, “I believe being a Godly example to an unbelieving spouse can lead to restoration in their life so that they may avoid the cleansing fire in death.” The word “can” here is doing all the heavy lifting, as it’s effectively the conclusion to the whole piece. I spent an entire article discussing Biblical interpretations, my understanding of Paul, and comparing different Bible translations just to conclude that being an openly good person (with the caveat of also being a Christian) could lead to someone else (who is not a Christian) not going to hell. Where does the Christian framework apply? I’ve effectively gutted much of Christian doctrine and crafted a sneaky loophole just to, what, remain Christian? Why did I need to do all of that? If I am just going to slash the Bible every time I write about it, why do I adhere to it at all; why don’t I just leave Christianity?

It was this question which led to my long hiatus. After a fiery, and somewhat rambly, first five posts, I stopped. Initially, I had drafted an article called “On Theology.” I will post the conclusion in its entirety below:

In conclusion, progressive revelation is a good and healthy thing. It helps revitalize religion and restructure it to incorporate all of the truth we have learned. As Christians, we need to no longer be afraid of doubting the texts, not only of theologians but also of individuals like Paul. Heck, even in some of his letters we makes it clears that what he is saying is an opinion. We are worshippers of an infinite God, not a book constrained by covers. We should not be afraid to discover new truth in the world and let go of what we no longer need/learned is not actually good.

I completed this article on June 23, 2023, at 9:10 PM. I planned to release it on the 28th, but I didn’t. I didn’t because the above conclusion wrecked me: I was no longer adhering to Christianity because I believed it, I was adhering to Christianity because it worked for me. This is remarkably similar to the positions many of the philosophers Gschwandtner analyzed held. Five philosophers, all Christians (four Catholics and one Huguenot), refused to address whether Christianity was true. Rather, as Gschwandtner concludes, “[a]nd is that not, indeed, what apologetics has always done at its best: showing that the experience of faith is coherent and meaningful and a position worth holding?” These philosophers were attempting to demonstrate that Christianity is worth believing in because the experience of Christianity is meaningful. None of the philosophers mentioned even discussed concepts like hell, interfaith relationships, or the nature of Biblical characters. All of their writings could have been on whether religion itself is worth adhering to.

Inevitably, I was forced to answer the question, “Is Christianity working for me,” and reluctantly replied, “No.” I say “reluctantly” as no one wants to lose their faith. It is an integral framework in someone’s life that when it is ripped out leaves a massive scar. Christians are right when they say there is a hole in the middle of one’s heart after leaving, but not for the reasons they think. Often, Christianity (and I assume all religions) is a part of who you are as a person. As is often said, one’s “identity” is in Christ. If you come to the conclusion you no longer view Jesus as your savior, then what is your identity in? In fact, for some, they have no identity whatsoever after leaving Christianity (luckily, this was not the case for me).

I concluded that I could no longer call myself a Christian in December of last year, but only now feel prepared to write on it. This article, however, is not merely an atheistic coming-out letter. Firstly, I don’t know if I would comfortably label myself an atheist. In December, I comfortably labeled myself a “panendeist” (I will allow the reader to decipher what that entails). At this point, I am not quite certain. Second, I believe some key takeaways from my story can help someone who does choose to remain a Christian (or any religion for that matter). That is, understanding the experience of Christianity is what’s most important at the end of the day. As James writes, “[for] as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also,” and so too is belief without experience. If all you are doing is believing restrictive and oppressive rules and beating yourself up for your failings and flaws, then your experience will be miserable. You will live your life torment and likely, like the official teachings of the Church of Christ, not even be certain you will make it into heaven. Reflect on this experience and ask yourself why you are having it. While Christ never promised anyone an easy life, he also never said he’d psychologically torment his followers till death. And who knows, perhaps you will succeed where I failed: saving Christianity from itself.

Also, you could use everything as a justification for starting your own, new religion. Honestly, go for it. Perhaps you’ll create a set of rules, beliefs, and practices that to an even more meaningful experience than anything our current slate of religions can grant. Just be mindful that this might be immensely difficult to justify with yourself as well as potentially being incredibly isolating (especially if you live somewhere where one religion dominates).

What, then, does this mean for the blog? Is this the final article, or will it shift in focus? It will shift in focus. My primary focus will likely be on ethics, culture, and a concept I am working on called “Liminalogy.” Christianity (and religion writ large) will still be mainstays (as it was a key part of my identity) but do not expect articles that provide solutions to current conflicts within Christianity like my previous articles attempted to do. And what of my previous articles? I will be leaving those up. Both as tools that readers can apply as they like (I do not mind people using them as justifications for their beliefs) and because this article makes no sense without them. Lastly, no, “On Theology” will never be released.

I guess I will have to get Russell Winters to write a new “about the author” description for me.