Christianity’s Internal and External Witness

Public Domain, Caravaggio – The Incredulity of Saint Thomas

Christianity, unlike the Eastern religions I was weaned on as a young adult, appeals to and requires both physical and historical evidence — archaeological discoveries, geographical locations and recorded customs, real figures and events, written history, laws and instruction — as well as heart change, spiritual transformation, and personal revolution. The balance between those two — Internal and External witness — is incredibly important to the validity and uniqueness of the Christian faith.

As a spiritual seeker in the late 70’s, it was Eastern religion’s lack of historical, external, rational grounding that inevitably left me unsatisfied. In his book, Autobiography of a Yogi, when Paramahansa Yogananda speaks of things like gurus levitating or transporting, it inspires but rings somewhat hollow. Why? There just isn’t enough actual evidence for it. Whereas, in the case of the Resurrection of Christ for example (the central claim of Christian testimony), there were over five hundred witnesses (I Cor. 15), many of whom would go on to be martyred, substantive documentation of the names and events in question, as well as references to verifiable customs, locations, and figures. Furthermore, the alleged event propelled a ragtag group of followers without political or financial clout to explode onto the historical scene and quickly become one of the world’s great religions, influencing human history in more ways, perhaps, than any other.

Pursuing enlightenment (or detachment) — a central tenet of many Eastern religions — is an entirely subjective experience. As a spiritual seeker in the late 70’s, tail-end of the 60’s counter-cultural shifts, most of my religious / spiritual experiences had been subjective. It was research into the authenticity and reliability of the Bible which rocked my world. I quickly discovered that there was more to Christianity than just a bunch of outlandish claims made in a dusty old document. There was objective evidences! Of course, this didn’t make Christianity infallible and absolutely compelling. I mean, many people look at the evidence and reject the claims of Christ and Scripture. However, it was Christianity’s emphasis upon subjective and objective evidences that made it both open to criticism and, ultimately for me, satisfying.

I’ve since come to believe that Christianity, unlike other world religions, presents a significant, compelling balance between objective and subjective witness, reason and intuition, proofs and faith. Or to put it another way, Christianity appeals to both meta-narratives and micro-narratives—meta-narrative being a grand, all-encompassing story, theory, or point, micro-narrative being a personal, individual story that may or may not buttress the bigger point. However, those external evidences (biblical meta-narrative) didn’t mean much until I had an internal experience, change of heart, revelation (personal micro-narrative).

Some (perhaps most) religions rely heavily on internal evidence for their validation. I personally know quite a few Mormons. If you ask a Mormon how they know Mormonism is true, they will often mention a “burning in the bosom” experience. This internal witness is incredibly important to the average Mormon’s testimony. While evangelical Christians consider Mormonism heterodox, Christians often (I think mistakenly) approach their faith in a similar way. They will say, “I believe Christianity is true because I know it in my heart, I’ve changed, and God has spoken to me.” Of course, God may indeed have spoken to them! But how is this any different from the Mormon, the Hindu, or the Unitarian Universalist who makes a similar claim? The problem is obvious: Any beliefs can be justified if they don’t require external validation.

On the other hand are religions that rely too heavily on external evidence, tradition, or custom. There is no revelation required, just compliance; a shell of ritual devoid of transformation. Yet when you ask for validation, persuasion is lacking. So an angel spoke to Mohammed or Joseph Smith. So Buddah was enlightened. So the Maharishi spoke to an ascended master a long, long time ago. So the fundamentalist cult leader claims he is receiving direct messages from God. The question is how are these claims to authority and revelation tested? How is Mohammed’s credibility as a prophet tested, Buddah’s status as an enlightened master validated, or Christ’s claim to deity verified?

Of course, this does not mean that the objective, historical evidences for Christianity persuades everyone and can’t be challenged. As Pascal suggested, God provides us with enough evidence to believe, but not so much that we don’t need faith. Once again, it’s a balance between the internal and external. And this is one thing I find uniquely compelling about Christianity: It respects the fact that I am both a physical and a spiritual being, my head and my heart need engaged. Jesus Christ actually lived, performed miracles, and rose from the dead. But he still requires my faith and says I must be born again.

We are in danger whenever we lose this balance and emphasize the subjective, experiential elements of Christianity over the objective, rational elements of Christianity. Or vice-versa. A religion that is built entirely upon a historical event but lacks transformative power is flawed and inevitably bound to lifeless tradition. Conversely, a religion that is entirely about enlightenment without any grounding in reason or external evidences, is not worth believing.