| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
In churches, the person being baptized may receive direct instruction from the pastor for a certain period of time before the baptism ceremony. The lessons were meant to prepare one for baptism, but in my case, the Bible studies continued even when that time came. Moreover, instead of lessons in a prefab on Sunday afternoons as in the beginning, the pastor had already been visiting my apartment to give one-on-one Bible lectures for about a year.
For such a long period (I think it's fair to say), I was taught by the pastor, but what was taught to me there did not include any material that would enable me to evaluate the Bible itself, such as the history of the formation of the biblical canon or discussions regarding the reliability of the Gospels.
Rather, it seemed as if such "objective knowledge" was intentionally avoided; the lecture consisted mainly of explaining the interactions and parables between Jesus and his disciples as recorded in the Gospels, along with their context and background, and concluding with an exhortation that applied to my own life. At those times, the pastor would often say, "Do not place yourself above the Bible, but place yourself below the Bible and listen to its message."
A pamphlet for churches describing methods of so-called "personal evangelism" includes a section titled "What to do if the other person asks you questions about the history of the Bible," which reads as follows: "In such cases, try not to turn evangelism into a forum for debate. Since theoretical persuasion does not lead to conversion, focus the other person's attention on his or her own relationship to the gospel," the advice goes. Specifically, instead of asking, "What do you think of the Bible?" it is recommended to ask back, "What do you think of the message from the Bible?"
I later found myself in the opposite position and followed that same method, but this method demands silence about the Bible and is not fair. It is telling the other person, "You may ask about God, Christ, man, and the world. Ask as much as you want, but the Bible is a different matter. Ask about the Bible only after you have faith."
However, preventing them from questioning the Bible will only hinder their approach to Christianity, not encourage it.
It is natural that those in a position to be preached the gospel are concerned with the historical reliability of the Bible. Who, upon hearing a narrative fairy tale, even if it moves us and teaches us something, would imagine that the characters in it must have actually existed as they are described?
In church evangelism, it is assumed that once conversion is achieved, doubts about Jesus and the Bible will cease. This is the meaning behind the phrase pastors sometimes use: "If you believe, you will understand."
However, knowledge of the events necessary for faith to be established, that is, the events that are the premise of faith, is important. For it was abundant in the disciples who first believed in Jesus. It was only after various events concerning Jesus that they believed in him.
In post-apostolic man it is a significantly smaller amount. Therefore, questions such as whether what is written in the Bible is true and whether the miracles that supposedly led them to believe in Jesus were possible are the bare minimum questions that post-apostolic seekers feel they absolutely need to know.
Questions about the premises of faith are not, and should not be, resolved by believing. For in a healthy faith the distinction between knowledge and faith must be maintained. Faith depends on these facts, not the other way around. This is the "fact-dependent of the faith" in Christianity. However, questioning the premise of faith is not welcomed.
In fact, this is not a problem on the part of the seekers, but rather a manifestation of the problems within the church. The church's belief that "discussing the Bible is an obstacle to faith" is a sign that the church is ill. In principle, the church should be able to proudly say that "any discussion of the Bible is beneficial to the faith." However, there are circumstances on the church's side that prevent it from saying this.
Why has the modern church reached this state?
When Christianity was born in the Roman world, it was immediately confronted with the Hellenistic culture of the time and came to need theology and apologetics as a counter to the Greek-derived philosophy and ethics. It can be said that Christianity was already a religion with a strong rational aspect in the early centuries of its existence.
However, this rational nature would put Christianity itself in a corner. Modern biblical criticism began in the 18th century, but Western Christian theology was influenced by Kant's philosophy, which by the end of the 19th century had cast serious doubt on the historicity of the Gospels.
For this reason, the church came to believe that treating the Bible solely rationally was dangerous. The following "Easy Study 1 - Easy Study 3" provide an overview of this process.