Examination

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica because they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. - Acts 17:11

This type of nobility is not something that is conferred on someone, like a title given by the queen of England, but rather a it is quality of character.  Nobility of this kind affects everything that flows from it.  It is nobility of character that causes people to test beliefs and to, with integrity, hold to what is true and turn away from what is false.  This is nowhere more evident than in the question of Faith in Christ.  Paul speaks in 2 Thessalonians 2 about those who "refused to love the truth" and concludes that they will not be saved.  Why?  Because God doesn't love them as He does others?  No, but rather because they do not love the truth which leads them to reject the truth.

In this post I want to convince you to be noble.  Fairly examine the evidences for Christianity before you reject faith.  I want to contend that faith is a moral issue and as such is inextricably intertwined with nobility.  It does not stand alone as something I either have or don't have, like freckles or malaria.  It does not stand as something I have no responsibility for because it was just bestowed on me like a birthday gift. 

Rather, faith has, inherent in it, a moral component because it depends on my willingness to be fair with the evidence.  It is not morally neutral, like a title, but rather it is, in a very profound sense, either good and right, or bad and wrong.

Those who reject the moral nature of faith are likely conclude quickly that the reason they do not believe in Christ is due to a lack of evidence.  But I submit to you that when examining the evidence for/against Christianity, we ought also to examine our own hearts for prejudice and that lack of nobility that causes a person to begin an investigation with a conclusion already chosen.  His seeking then is an effort to confirm his conclusion, not an effort to arrive at truth.  In order to do this, it seems wise to ask ourselves some searching questions, and be honest with our answers.

First, have I really weighed the evidence of Christianity?  To casually scan an article, book, or discussion forum, looking for something I can reject to stand as a representative of all the opposition has to offer is disingenuous. Someone who has attended Sunday School as a child but never, with an adult mind, examined the evidences for Christianity is not noble if they reject Christianity when they hear objections unless they give serious attention and effort to finding answers to those objections.  It is not the process of a fair mind to listen to one side and refuse to listen to the other, and fair-mindedness is a moral quality.  If you are not willing to put forth sufficient effort to energetically examine the evidence for Christ, you will not be compelled by that evidence, because you will not know or understand that evidence.

Second, have I demanded that the evidence meet standards that I do not apply to all historical people/events/religions?  Have I rejected Christianity on the grounds that the evidence is not as I would like it to be, or because it is actually lacking?  I don't particularly like broccoli.  If you were to ask me why, and I replied that I don't eat broccoli because it is green, you would expect that I won't eat lettuce, spinach or green

beans for the same reason.  If you find, however, that I eat lots of other green vegetables, it would be reasonable to conclude that my real objection to broccoli is not it's green color but something else.  To reject Christianity on grounds that would also cause you to reject the existence of Abraham Lincoln is dishonest, unless you also reject the existence of Abraham Lincoln, and honesty is a moral quality.  If you are unwilling to put forth the effort to fairly and equitably apply the same standards of evidence to Christianity as you do to other historical matters, you will not be compelled by that evidence because you will discount that evidence.
 

Third, if that evidence did conform to the standard I apply to everything else, would I immediately accept Christ, and begin following Him with all my heart, or would I promptly raise/change the required standard of evidence or find

some other point to argue about?  To reject Christianity because I keep changing the standard of evidence I deem acceptable is to practice willful self-deception.  If the Gospels are historical would that be enough evidence for you?  If you say no, then it is clear the real cause of your lack of faith is not that you lack evidence but that you lack the willingness to receive evidence, and unwillingness to accept evidence because I don't like that evidence is a moral issue.

Actually, the evidence for Christianity is of such a nature that it brings to the surface the character of the person weighing it. So in examination of Christianity, to be fair, just, and noble, you must also examine yourself.  Are you willing to accept the evidence if it is contrary to what you want to believe?  If you are unwilling to follow Christ regardless of the evidence, you may present "reasons" to justify your rejection and hide your unwillingness, maybe even from yourself, but hiding injustice and dishonesty does not make you just and honest.

 

Because faith is a moral issue, if you have already chosen that you will not follow Christ, you will not be compelled by the evidences of Christianity.  You will find it possible to rationalize and to attribute the fault to the evidences of Christianity when in truth, the failure may be in your insufficient and/or dishonest approach to that evidence.  The only way you can know for sure is to honestly examine yourself as well as the evidence for Christianity.