The Evidence from Experience

I suppose it should be noted that the evidence that I am talking about here is not true evidence in the classical sense. A believer's personal experience with God, while very real, cannot be used as the sole grounds upon which to base a defense of one's faith. And yet, as I said, such experiences are very real, and thus cannot be ignored either. This is because, unlike what many may think, the Christian religion is not about believing in certain precepts and doctrines. It is instead a relationship with a person. While it is true that doctrine and proper theology are very much needed to frame that relationship, it is the relationship itself that forms the core of our beliefs. If one only has an intellectual accent of the ideals of Christianity, then their faith becomes nothing more than mental aerobics. We, as Christians, get our life and vitality from the person of Christ Himself.

But what place does such "evidence" have in the defense of our faith? Such arguments, when levied by themselves, can, and usually do, come across to the unbeliever as simply subjective. After all, anyone can claim to have some sort of religious "experience". And many do claim such experiences from many other worldviews that we Christians would claim as false. So then, can we not use the reality of God in our lives? Not at all. In fact, I think such arguments to be a vital part of the apologetic message.

The key is that our experience, or what I shall call "soft" evidence, cannot stand alone. Instead, it must rest atop what I shall call "hard" evidence. In other words, arguments that stem from objective moorings, such as the cosmological or teleological arguments. And this is the apologists primary task. This is where the hard thinking must take place, so that it can be shown that our beliefs are reasonable, logical, and coherent.

I have heard it said that to try to find a starting point for the reasonableness of the gospel apart from the gospel is to deny the gospel. I actually don't believe this. Instead I see the gospel of Christ as the goal, rather than the starting point. To use the illustration of the chasm between man and God, the gospel would be the bridge that spans that chasm, whereas apologetics is the foundation of that bridge. Without that foundation, many people will look at the bridge and come to the conclusion that only an idiot would walk across something that could fall out from underneath them. But notice that the bridge is necessary. Without it, all you have are the foundations and no way to cross that chasm. This is why I said that the soft evidence of our personal experiences rest atop the hard evidence. One cannot simply begin to use religious language when talking to a skeptic. They cannot understand it; it is a foreign language to them. But once you have done the hard work of building the foundations, then you apply the soft evidence of the reality of God as a personal being in your life. In essence, you place the bridge on the foundations, then walk across, all the while inviting them to follow you.

The evidence of our experiences are a vital part of our witness. Indeed, that is what it means to be a witness. But in this ever-increasingly skeptical world we live in, we must also do the work of providing that foundation which gives credibility to our very real, very personal, inner knowledge of our Lord.