Triple-jumping and the Crisis of Faith...

The Times' startling interview with Jonathan Edwards about his gaining faith and losing it again is not untypical of what can happen in sudden, showy, public conversions. Many a Billy Graham convert  has quietly slid back out of the euphoria again; any huge surge of adrenalin and visionary excitement risks having a backlash.
In the case of Edwards, maybe the media - including Songs of Praise - did him few favours by making such a public  meal of his religiosity. There is a sadness in the situation, whether you are a believer yourself or not: a bipolar swing from public devotion to public renunciation does not suggest happiness.  Perhaps conversions should be slow and struggling, rather than exciting: as the man said, "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief!"

Comments

[Bob Green]

Why is there a "sadness" in the situation?

Why do godders arrogantly think that those who don't follow their myths and fantasies are somehow unhappy?

I have no idea of Jonathan Edwardes' private thoughts on the matter of his about turn from faith icon to serial doubter , but I would hazard a guess that realizing he has exited from la la land is strangely comforting.

If not happily uplifting.

[Perfectbod]

Where's this article?

Without reading it, or therefore being able to comment of Mr Edwardes' situation itself, I have seen many young people attracted by faith at difficult times. I live next door to a community of Opus Dei and there are an awful lot of lonerly young mums. I feel it's a bit similar to the article about the fashion for Italian exorcism and the worries of responsible clerics that it preys on the vulnerable by offering them false solutions.

So here's a question: What are the rules for the ethical and responsible conversion of people who may be vulnerable and under stress? or does anything go as long as you are not recruiting from another religion?

[Andrew Eburne]

Pace Bob Green's question, 'why is there a "sadness"...?'

The simple, unexceptional answer given by Libby follows a mere ten words later: 'a bipolar swing from public devotion to public renunciation does not suggest happiness.' The point she is making need not in fact be particular to religion, but could apply to any violent change of publicly held opinion. The violence of the change does not suggest happiness (not the object of the change).

What amazes me is how Bob can turn this straightforward remark into a springboard to attack Christians.

I presume he means Christians, for he deploys the usual secularist modes of aggression ('why do godders arrogantly think') ridicule ('la la land') and contempt ('myths and fantasies').

One of the compelling reasons for humans to begin or continue that quest which may, for some, end in religious belief, is that secularists appear so unremittingly aggressive, and full of rancour; so lacking in peace.

[Christopher]

It has happened to a lot of us, Libby. It may happen to a lot of those now professing their faith rather loudly. I wonder how many evangelicals or catholics, christians or muslims, mullahs, priests and bishops even, deep down realise that they may no longer believe things with quite the certainty they once did but are now too committed/compromised to be able to say so for fear of disappointing others. Jonathan has decided to be honest about it and I congratulate him for that. Why should he prop up what he now sees as a delusion, especially if he has come to realise, as many of us have, that faith can all too often pander to the worst prejudices in people?

[Mary Shelley]

A public conversion is a very difficult way to start one's faith. Living as they do in a secular age, surrounded by militant, evangelizing atheists, most believers stay quiet. They must also learn to tolerate a large amount of doubt.

Pascal said that only by taking Mass with other Catholics could doubt be kept at bay. I am not sure what Edwards did post conversion, but one man at home with his Bible is not the right way.

[Geoffrey Smith]

What does it profit a man if he gains the whole athletic world but suffers the loss of his own soul? Edwards is now a poverty-stricken has-been, in more ways than one, and he is blaming God for it. God gave Edwards this physical prowess, and now He has taken back what has always been His. Edwards should be profoundly grateful to his Maker for a gift that no one on this blogspot has ever enjoyed.

[Coel]

I wonder whether, if an atheist announced his conversion to Christianity, Libby Purves would find "sadness in the situation" and say it "does not suggest happiness"? Or is she just revealing her biases in saying that about Edwards? Afterall, Edwards himself says the exact opposite: "I feel internally happier than at any time of my life, more content within my own skin".

Andrew Eburne comments "secularists appear so unremittingly aggressive, and full of rancour; so lacking in peace."

Well, pot, kettle, black Andrew! When Edwards discusses his loss of faith, Purves regards it as a matter of "sadness"; when secularists comment on Christian Voice's stand of cancer vaccine, in terms no more condemnatory than Purves's own comments, Purves feels the need to label them "militant and ill-tempered"; and of course in the adverts for this blog atheists are by default labelled "grumpy"!

Why the aggressiveness and rancour towards atheists? You sound so lacking in peace.

[Raymond Berger]

Mr Edwards has joined the hosts of us who have no sense of a sentient or caring being external to our lives who supervises our actions. This is the Planet of the powerful, as history confirms,recently exemplified in the rise of the oligarchs and superrich under successive UK Governments. 'Blessed are the Meek"? Surely not. I am an ageing atheist who cares for my family, children, friends, and the state of the world and the caring there is quantifiable rather than mythical.

[Alan Marsh]

After 32 years as a Christian I find the truth of what I believe to be confirmed more and more by experience: I understood very little at the beginning but now the only certainty is God.

I am genuinely sad for Jonathan, but God is waiting for every Prodigal Son (and Daughter) to come home to him when they are ready, and Jonathan will know this from his reading of the bible.

[Mark Allen]

The banner above this piece proclaims "Libby Purves's guide to religion and thought". Shold it not be rebranded as "Libby Purves's soapbox for tired and transparent religious apologetics".

Has she actually read the interview she is commenting on? What about the quote from the newly free Mr Edwards where he says such things as: "I am not unhappy about the fact that there might not be a God" and "I don’t feel that my life has a big, gaping hole in it. In some ways I feel more human than I ever have.", not to mention "I feel internally happier than at any time of my life, more content within my own skin. Maybe it is because I am not viewing the world through a specific set of spectacles".

How do these quotes lead her to claim "There is a sadness in the situation". Is it time to take off the specific spectacles Ms Purves? Perhaps Jonathan Edwards can give you a few tips.

[perfectbod]

Having read the article now, I can see that this is about what happens when the music stops. Interesting that Tony Blair is moving in the opposite direction as he retires(though I can quite see that if you are PM then you may just have to wait until you resign).

Anyone out there going to answer my question about responsible, ethical conversions of the vulnerable?

[andrew parker]

Geoffrey- I think we could be a bit kinder to the poor man- after all he has shown courage and humility in allowing his own soul to be held up for national scrutiny. But you're right in substance- as Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Papal household, said recently; "Christianity is about gratitude".

I wonder if wordly success is ever a very good platform for evangelisation? Many of the most effective preachers I've heard are those who have given their lives to God in actions as well as words. Isn't it the Scientologists who are overly dependent on the celebrity endorsement thing? The church can't be looking to celebrities for spiritual leadership simply because they catch our attention.

I don't follow the assertion at the start of this thread that Edwards was a born again convert. The edition of the interview I have clearly states that Edwards' faith "permeated every fibre of his being since his trips to Sunday school in the company of his parents". Is that true or untrue?

If it is true then this may be more a case of someone being brought up as a Christian, but not actually knowing God personally. "I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis", he says. Isn't his situation is the opposite of that stated at the top of this thread?

Referring to the Catholic world, Pope Paul VI said that many Catholics were "sacramentalised but not evangelised"- in other words they did all the stuff but never actually discovered a personal relationship with Jesus.

Perhaps Edwards can't get out of the shadow of his own background- first copying his parents, then doing the opposite, but still revealing the same imprint. See Hugh Hefner (81) in the same edition of the paper.

In his book "Hope against Drakness" Fr Richard Rohr, the Franciscan, says that there are three routes to conversion, or metanoia; "personal suffering, great awareness or Damascus road experiences". On the evidence of the article, Edwards doesn't seem to have gone down any of those three routes.

By the way, Fr Richard Rohr also goes on to say that "finger-pointing is usually just an avoidance of our own transformation"

The suggestion in the article that St Paul's conversion, personal and political transformation and subsequent teachings that have guided the souls of billions, could have been caused by an epileptic fit, is very poor, worse than Christopher Hitchens asssertion that the Rev Martin Luther King wasn't a Christian.

We don't condemn atheists personally, but we have to ask them to do better with the philosophical counter-arguments.

Referring to his notion that there is no God, Edwards says in the article "just because something is unpalatable that doesn't mean that it is not true." This made me think of this from Proverbs 5 verse 3;

"for the lips of the adultress drip with honey,
her palate is more unctuous than oil
but in the end she is bitter as wormwood
sharp as a two-edged sword"

It is sometimes more "palatable" to be an unbeliever. As a Christians we aren't consumers in a market for nice feelings. You do receive amazing graces as a Christian, but obedience comes first.

[Russ]

A few things are worth saying here:
1 Jonathan's was not a "high profile conversion". He's said publicly before that he has had a relationship with God as far back as he can remember - "I remember praying to accept Jesus into my heart when I was six". He grew up in an Anglican vicarage, and many of his friends and family remain Christians.
2 The guy has had a supremely successful athletics career that has kept him in the public eye for the best part of 20 years. He's going through a major life change, so it's not that surprising that he's asking hard questions of himself and his faith. As a Christian, I hope he won't be too hasty in his conclusions.
3 He is being honest intellectually - but please let's not suggest that all Christians must then automatically be intellectually dishonest. Many of us came to faith not through some crisis, or emotional response, but by carefully weighing the evidence before us for the Christian faith. In countless nations across the world, believers are facing imprisonment and death on the strength of their convictions - please let's not have any patronising nonsense about intellectual martyrdom when there are real martyrs every day.

[Mary Shelley]

Doesn’t it all revolve around doubt? To be a winning athlete Edwards could not tolerate an iota of doubt in his abilities nor single minute of hesitation. To do so meant he would he would lose! He approached his Christianity in the same way, proclaiming it to the rooftops, allowing not a whisper of uncertainty.

What a shame! He left the sports world where winning meant everything, where doubting signified losing and entered the real world where there is never certainty, or at least not much. He left the Christianity of the sport’s world (which he called “sports psychology”) and arrived as a Christian in a secular world. And didn’t much like his position in the place.

Because it’s hard to be a Christian in secular Britain. Whenever I first enter church to take Mass, I usually breathe a little sigh of relief to be back in a holy place surrounded by other believers. I try to carry the grace of the Mass and Eucharist with me as I go back out into secular society...but sometimes it’s hard. No wonder some holy men and women choose the cloisters of a contemplative life—can’t be in the world but not *of* it—to be not *of* the world, they have to be out of it.

As for Edwards: well, the uncertainties of living as a believing Christian in a profane, secular world overcame his Christianity...In a secular world it is certainly easier to be an atheist—there’s a huge certainty in saying nothing means anything. This is what he has done—and he’s happy. No more doubts! (He doesn’t like doubts.)

[Malcolm]

I admire Jonathan Edwards for having come out into the open as regarding his loss of God. It takes courage and honesty. I myself went through a similar crisis some years ago. One morning as I was saying Mass it dawned on me that I had no certainty as to God's reality. Was I an athiest or an agnostic? I needed time to decide which.
I actually turned to Zen Buddhism, although I didn't abandon my work as a priest. This was partly due to financial reasons as well as not wanting to cause distress to many of those who were responding to my ministry.
It was the headteacher of a local comprehensive school who suggested to me that I should view the priestly office as my Zen practice.
For well over six years I continued in this state, even moving to another parish. Then one morning I found myself sliding into faith again, not where I once was, but further up the spiral. My former beliefs were too rigid and left no room for movement and motive for reflection.

[Andrew Brown]

If you have never doubted what you believe (in terms of your religious faith or world view)then you are either arrogant, stupid or both.

The reason I am a Christian is NOT because I never have any doubts about my faith, but rather that Christianity makes more sense to me than atheism or any of the other world religions I have looked into. To be without doubt, you would have to have complete knowledge... in other words, you would have to BE GOD!

[James Bannon]

I for one am happy to see an individual lose the shackles of faith and embrace doubt. It is even more a cause for celebration when it is a person who was celebrated for being a True Christian (TM). Good luck Jonathan wherever you are.

[Dan]

I read the article with some interest but to suggest that Christianity and intelligence are uncomfortable bosom buddies is as far wide of the mark as a Tim Henman forehand.

The article seeemed to suggest that all Christians are brainwashed and will soon give up on their childish faith once they either a) live in the real world b) think about life.

I happen to have a brain and I also manage to live as a Christian. Of course I doubt on occasions but then I look around me, I see the effects of sin on the world and on human hearts and the message of the bible makes sense.

I have thought seriously about subjects like creation vs evolution and to me it takes faith to beleive in creation but it takes a labotomy to embrace a theory that purports that the immense complexity of life has been produced by millions of years of chance, struggle, death, mutations and freak accidents!

Read the bible, ask God to open your eyes and far from being intellectually shackled you will discover that God can use your brain to serve Him in this godless age.

[Sam Pradaya]

Well, if he want's to know the Absolute Truth, then he should chant the Hare Krsna mantra. Oldest system in the world and it works.

S.P.

[gabe]

Reading of Jonathan Edwards, I can't help compare him to Eric Liddle of 'Chariots of Fire' fame!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082158/

One ran for God's glory, and the other ran for God to glorify him.Without a critical analysis of what or who you want to believe,you are standing on a house built on sand,which crumbles when the rain comes down.Christianity is not to be entered into as a 'blind faith' but as a result of deliberate action/belief.

[John W. Loftus]

There are many of us who have rejected the Christian faith once we started questioning it.

[Karen]

John W. Loftus : there are also many of us who haven't :)

[Colin McGuiness]

Well done Jonathan! It takes a brave man to question beliefs that you are told not to question as a child - and then to face your family who preached them to you.

I have much more respect for him now as a man, not just as an athlete.

Reading back through the coments on this page is a bit worrying. The arrogance of believers in a theory of creation that has never had any evidence to support it, suggesting that Jonathan is in the wrong, is incredible.

I would also like to say that evolution makes complete sense as a theory - anyone who disagrees really does not understand it. Even if you don't agree with the theory, a jump from that to believing there is a god who created everything and who has a say in all that happens - is pretty huge.

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow so it is easier to disregard the evidence. I sincerely hope that more people read up on subjects such as evolution and biblical history so they can at least be in a position to argue their point properly.

[CJ22]

"it takes a labotomy to embrace a theory that purports that the immense complexity of life has been produced by millions of years of chance, struggle, death, mutations and freak accidents!"

Nope, it just takes a gander at the evidence and a little background reading. In fact, it's a very trivial thing to disprove evolution - just find a fossil that does not sit in the correct place in the fossil record (say, a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian). Get cracking, and let us know when you find something. In the meantime, you might try taking your fingers out of your ears.

[alan]

Good for you, Jonathan. As an atheist myself, I would have to admit that I too would like the comfort of an afterlife in paradise, but - and here believers may well take offence although this is not my intention - I just cannot be intellectually dishonest with myself. I simply cannot believe, especially not the self-contraditory tripe and false agruments served up by the professional purveyors of various religions. I simply will not deceive myself, and so I must admit that I do not believe. This, I think, is an honest and sensible stand. As I child I was subjected to religious propaganda and for a long time I thought there must be something wrong with me - was I the only person who didn't believe in these supernatural fairy stories? (This was sixty years ago in a remote English village.) Today it is easier to be an atheist although for many believers it would be an enormous loss of face to put aside their "faith". But at least Jonathan Edwards has done so and is accepting the consequences. Thank goodness he has had the courage to be honest with himself and to speak out and say how happy, relieved and intellectually free he feels after having taken this step away from angels, devils and miracles and into reality.

[Michael J. Penfold]

That Jonathan Edwards' initial 'revelation of God' was a deception (something entirely understandable and which occurs with alarming frequency in all religions worldwide) does not remotely prove that God himself is a deception. Though personal subjective experiences can be and often are mistaken, objective realities exist independent of our experience of them.

[Paul from St. Annes, Lancashire]

Jonathan gives a perhaps big clue in his fascinating interview about his turning from God - in the bubble world of athletics he simply did not think about what he claimed to believe. His passionate statements of 'faith' were not perhaps rooted in sober reflection and the personal relationship with Jesus which evangelicals are known for.

Such a turning from earnest claims to cool psychological reflection should give evangelicals and especially those of the more strident wing of charismatic and pentecostal faith much to think about. In the midst of your passionate claims to faith, my friends, is this 'faith' really thought through and shaped by an intelligent framework?

I hope this whole episode gives folks another more personal and hopefully evolving take on the current compelling debate between rational science and the Christian faith, and whether the intellectual coherence of Christian doctrine is really being articulated.

[Amenhotep]

Just heard a short interview with Jonathan on Radio Ulster today. He's spot on. It's not that the arguments of Christianity have not been properly articulated, or that he has failed to understand them. It is that he does not believe them.

He is not a stupid person - in fact, as a trained scientist he is very intelligent. The problem is not with Jonathan Edwards. The problem is that Christianity is false. Jesus of Nazareth did not rise from the dead, and 1 Corinthians 15:14 is probably the most sensible verse in the entire bible.

Good man, Jonathan!

[Kirk]

Jonathan has simply articulated his doubts - he doesn't know what he believes in any more. I hope he can leave it at that and reflect over time, because for now I suspect he is content simply because he doesn't have to struggle with those doubts. The rest of us in the meantime will cope with what the atheists throw at us - no problem. And if he does find that the world doesn't hold the answers well then God will be waiting for him and he needn't be embarrassed to return.

As for most of the atheists writing on this blog their arrogance that they can or even should have all the answers through 'rational' science is breathtaking. Science and Christianity are certainly not the enemies you believe (or rather wish) they were. You haven't even the tiniest fraction of an understanding of the creation around you and yet you believe in things you cannot prove and deny things you absolutely cannot disprove. Most of the honest atheists even admit this. Doesn't it feel strange to have no doubts?

[Big Gav]

As expected lots of mudslinging arguments between believers and non believers. The latest post aimed at athesists reads... 'You haven't even the tiniest fraction of an understanding of the creation around you and yet you believe in things you cannot prove and deny things you absolutely cannot disprove.'

How difficult is it to reflect that very question right back at the believer? And so it goes....

So I guess it depends which imperfect result you prefer: Some prefer to have a belief in a supernatural creator of all things supported by 'evidence' such as ancient primitive man-made, politically inspired texts. Others are not afraid of the axiom that is human inability to grasp the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and purposelessness of existence.

One IS a strength. The other IS a weakness. Both sides feel theirs is the former.

Atheists can come across as arrogant since that is often the way when you know you are in an argument with someone who is wrong.

The religious get all upset because somewhere deep inside them they can feel the rug being pulled from their feet...but they want that rug. They NEED that rug!

[Charlotte Smith]

I feel Jonathan has had the idea of faith rather 'drummed' into him from an early age. He has been forced from childhood up a narrow lane of Christian belief and has never been able to really learn for himself what the wider idea of God means to all races and religions. I myself know many people who have given on up their faith in adulthood as they were somewhat indoctrinated from a young age by family. I myself never had a religious upbringing, in fact I was never even christened, and was therefore able to make up my own ideas as I grow older. Through reading all about the many diverse avenues of spiritulism and faith, I now feel my life revolves around a single great creator as it never did before and I feel utterly at peace with this idea. I never felt happy with the idea of Jesus being the son of God and now I realise that I simply don't have to believe it to still be a believer. Lots of people in the world feel the same as me! In fact I don't think I could ever feel anything else but love for our one God. Jonathan mustn't sit back on his laurels but educate himself more on the wonders of this world. Why are we here? We're still asking ourselves that but only with asking questions, will we find the answer.

[Keith Halstead]

Did Ms Purves actually read the interview? Edwards attended Sunday School as a child and converted in his youth - hardly a "sudden, showy, public conversion". She is right that quick conversions sometimes end up in rapid de-conversions when faith proves to be a little too blind, but how does this apply to Edwards??

[Trevor Pettifer]

Give or take the odd Gold Medal ! my experiences are very close to Jonathan's. I have been a church elder for 25 years. However, It is the Truth of the Bible that is fundemental to the debate. Christians get all the key and distinguishing elements of their faith from the Bible.
A benevolent creator God, Virgin birth, Redemptive work of Jesus, eternal life etc. So is the Bible essentially the revealed word of the Christains God, if not there is no basis for a Christian faith. Having studied and researched more than at any time, I am embarrased that I never in all my faith years bothered to research the source of my faith. I am now confident that the Bible cannot be the Word of God or any god. check it out !