Last I heard from the British academic and critic A.N. Wilson, he had lost his Christian faith. Deo gratias, he has recovered it, and wrote a powerful Easter weekend testimonial to the necessity to be boldly Christian amid the sneering anti-Christian culture that is modern Britain. Notice that what won him back to the faith was not apologetics, but the witness of the lives of the saints and of everyday Christians. Excerpt:
The Polly Toynbees of this world ignore all the benign aspects of religion and see it purely as a sinister agent of control, especially over women.One suspects this is how it is viewed in most liberal circles, in university common rooms, at the BBC and, perhaps above all, sadly, by the bishops of the Church of England, who despite their episcopal regalia, nourish few discernible beliefs that could be distinguished from the liberalism of the age.
For ten or 15 of my middle years, I, too, was one of the mockers. But, as time passed, I found myself going back to church, although at first only as a fellow traveller with the believers, not as one who shared the faith that Jesus had truly risen from the grave.
Some time over the past five or six years - I could not tell you exactly when - I found that I had changed.
When I took part in the procession last Sunday and heard the Gospel being chanted, I assented to it with complete simplicity.
My own return to faith has surprised no one more than myself. Why did I return to it? Partially, perhaps it is no more than the confidence I have gained with age.
Rather than being cowed by them, I relish the notion that, by asserting a belief in the risen Christ, I am defying all the liberal clever-clogs on the block: cutting-edge novelists such as Martin Amis; foul-mouthed, self-satisfied TV presenters such as Jonathan Ross and Jo Brand; and the smug, tieless architects of so much television output.
But there is more to it than that. My belief has come about in large measure because of the lives and examples of people I have known - not the famous, not saints, but friends and relations who have lived, and faced death, in the light of the Resurrection story, or in the quiet acceptance that they have a future after they die.
More:
In the past, I have questioned its veracity and suggested that it should not be taken literally. But the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition. That, too, is why I now believe in it.Easter confronts us with a historical event set in time. We are faced with a story of an empty tomb, of a small group of men and women who were at one stage hiding for their lives and at the next were brave enough to face the full judicial persecution of the Roman Empire and proclaim their belief in a risen Christ.
Historians of Roman and Jewish law have argued at length about the details of Jesus's trial - and just how historical the Gospel accounts are.
Anyone who believes in the truth must heed the fine points that such scholars unearth. But at this distance of time, there is never going to be historical evidence one way or the other that could dissolve or sustain faith.
Of course, only hard evidence will satisfy the secularists, but over time and after repeated readings of the story, I've been convinced without it.
And in contrast to those ephemeral pundits of today, I have as my companions in belief such Christians as Dostoevsky, T. S. Eliot, Samuel Johnson and all the saints, known and unknown, throughout the ages.
When that great saint Thomas More, Chancellor of England, was on trial for his life for daring to defy Henry VIII, one of his prosecutors asked him if it did not worry him that he was standing out against all the bishops of England.
He replied: 'My lord, for one bishop of your opinion, I have a hundred saints of mine.'
Now, I think of that exchange and of his bravery in proclaiming his faith. Our bishops and theologians, frightened as they have been by the pounding of secularist guns, need that kind of bravery more than ever.Sadly, they have all but accepted that only stupid people actually believe in Christianity, and that the few intelligent people left in the churches are there only for the music or believe it all in some symbolic or contorted way which, when examined, turns out not to be belief after all.
As a matter of fact, I am sure the opposite is the case and that materialist atheism is not merely an arid creed, but totally irrational.Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.
The Resurrection, which proclaims that matter and spirit are mysteriously conjoined, is the ultimate key to who we are. It confronts us with an extraordinarily haunting story.
J. S. Bach believed the story, and set it to music. Most of the greatest writers and thinkers of the past 1,500 years have believed it.But an even stronger argument is the way that Christian faith transforms individual lives - the lives of the men and women with whom you mingle on a daily basis, the man, woman or child next to you in church tomorrow morning.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
I suppose a simple difference is that the Mormon vision contains things that are factually untrue and can be shown as such. (There are no cities in ancient America where people rode horses, American Indians are not Jewish)
Jesus didn't proclaim that ancient Israel was descended from the Trojans or something. So in this scenario a vision shared by numerous people is believable so long as it's not clearly disprovable by archaeology or science.
Turmarion,
I think I do know what you mean by 'spiritual but not religious', in both the good sense and the bad sense. I wish, though, that those people would open their minds to the idea that God does exist, and that the reason we feel good when we help other people is because God shaped our souls thus.
Simone Weil is one of my personal heroes, both for her inspiring writing and thought and for the example of her life. She was someone who took Christian love seriously, in both its personal and social dimensions. Her writing was apparently a favorite of the late, great Pope Paul VI as well.
That said, I disagree that she was 'spiritual but not religious'. Although she wasn't baptized Catholic till her deathbed, and had a lifelong sympathy for neo-Manichaeanism and other heterodox movements, and a love-hate relationship with the Catholic church, she also had an intense love for Jesus Christ, and a belief that He was God. At least, that's the sense that I glean from her writings (of which I've read a fair amount). She certainly self-identified as a Christian, and felt strongly that Europe could only save itself by a return to its Christian roots.
Call her a horribly heretical Christian if you choose, but I don't think 'spiritual but not religious' will wash.
Your Name at 11:52: Though she wasn't baptized until her deathbed, and had a strong fondness for Albigensianism and other heterodoxies, and a curious love-hate relationship with the Catholic church, her writings suggest to me that she was deeply and passionately a believer in Christ and in His divinity, whether or not she was a member of any particular church.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, she actually wasn't baptized. During her life she often said that she believed it to be God's will that she remain outside the Church in order to have more solidarity with those who could enter for whatever reason. I do think you're essentially right about her, though--baptized or not, she was a truer Christian than many born and raised in the faith. I have great respect for her, too. My point was that if someone such as Weil called themselves "spiritual but not religious", I could have respect for it, when in most cases such a term, in my opinion, is totally fatuous.
Turmarion,
My source is the biography from a few years ago by Francine du Plessix Gray, who said she had been baptized on her deathbed. I just looked it up though and apparently there is a fierce controversy over whether it happened and was valid- it rests on the testimony of her friend Simone Deitz who was fuzzy about chronology, and there's also some question as to whether Ms. Weil was conscious enough at the time to consent to baptism.
If beleif in Jesus is what you need to be GOOD and DECENT so beleive. Amen.
I have known though MANY people who were GOOD and HONEST and DECENT in every respect and did not beleive in God at all... and you know what they were the REAL Sons and Daughters of God - they are truly ONE WITH GOD (that you all beleive in)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.