Why Should I Become a Christian?

You should become a Christian because Christianity is true. Some truths we can't avoid, like the truth of the law of gravity but others we can, like which fuel to put in your car. Christianity's like the latter, it's the truth about what human beings are, how they work, what's best for them, where they come from and where they're going. You don't have to follow the truth but it's obviously better if you do.

To say that it's 'better' to follow Christianity is perhaps an understatement given how much Christians talk about being 'saved' - that would seem to suggest that there's something rather more essential about becoming a Christian. There's a great debate about what it means to be saved: what is that we are saved from? Meaningless, lack of joy, existential inauthenticity or hell fire? And who exactly is saved and who is damned?

Lets put this debate to one side. For now I want to stick with the idea that if Christianity is true it is objectively, and obviously, better to be a Christian than not to be. Some people object that they don't like the idea of becoming a Christian out of fear of the consequences of not believing: this is a serious objection which I will deal with seriously elsewhere, but for now lets say simply that if Christianity is true then it is 'better' to be a Christian than not.

Don't forget what it means for a religion to be true. It doesn't mean that it's nice, or praiseworthy, or is a wise and practical way of living. It means that it is in harmony with the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe. It's a massive, huge claim. If we understand that then it should be perfectly obvious that if (and it's a very big if) something really is in tune with the answer to all these eternal mysteries it is clearly better to be with it rather than without it.

It might be an obvious thing to say that you should become a Christian because Christianity is true but there's an enourmous amount of lazy thinking about this. So many people confuse the question of its truth with what they think of its claims. If it is true then saying you don't approve of it does not make it less true.

What most people probably mean when they talk like this is that they don't think it's true, because something about it seems unreasonable and making unreasonable demands or claims indicates that a religion is false. This is a reasonable line to take, if something about Christianity is illogical or reprehensible then it's hard to see that the religion is based on truth.

But I have never thought that you can prove, in our normal, earthly way, that Christianity is true. The limits of what we can do intellectually is to conclude that certain interpretations of Christianity could be true - there is nothing in faith that can't be challenged but there are some things that can't be entirely demolished. There is a case for Christianity, but it can't be proved like a mathematical formula or a scientific experiment.

Note that I say 'some interpretations of Christianity'. One lazy assumption that many people make is that whatever they hear said and done in the name of Christianity is Christianity. It isn't, any more than a football club is identical with the actions of all of its supporters, a business with its employees or a shop with its customers (the list could go on, of course none of these is exactly the same as the relationship between Christians and Christianity)

Too many people believe that they know what Christianity is and what Christians believe when in fact all they have is a collection of half baked ideas from a handful of vague encounters. The sad fact is that Christians can't agree among themselves on what Christianity is, the only people that seem to be able to sum it up perfectly are ill-informed and have closed minds. Some of them claim to be Christians, some of them claim to be atheists.

Jesus says we should know a tree by its fruit, so if Christianity is true there should be some sort of consequence of Christianity that allows for it to be true. There must be something that Christians do or are that indicates that there is something in what they believe.

But again the evidence is mixed. There are some Christians of whom we would say 'if they were all like that then I'd be inclined to think that it was true' but there are also liars, hypocrites, even murderers who claim to be good Christians.

But lets not mince words on this. When we take the actions of some people within a group and make a judgement on everyone else in that group we call this prejudice. Prejudice is wrong when it's to do with race, gender, sexuality, disability and it's also wrong with religion. Unfortunately a lot of intelligent people who claim to hate prejudice are themselves completely prejudiced when it comes to Christians and Christianity. Because Christianity was, for many years, associated with the upper classes, those in authority, and colonialism it has become thoroughly acceptable to display prejudice towards Christians.

And this prejudice leads people to reject the truth of Christianity based on the actions of Christians that they don't approve of. This is no more logical than it is to say that because some Christians are virtuous, just and loving then Christianity must be true.

We can't prove the truth or falsity of Christianity on the evidence of what its followers do any more than we can using abstract logic. But we can't disprove it either. There is enough Christian behaviour which is attractive and worthy to suggest that it could be inspired by something more than an idea, by something real.

So we should judge Christianity on whether we think it is true or not. Part of that judgement includes the question of whether its teachings are logical or impressive since it would be odd for something true to include completely illogical or horrible teachings.

But are we able to make such a blanket judgement on Christianity without considering the many different versions of Christianity? Is it not possible that some of these versions are more reasonable than others. There may be things asserted by individual Christians that we meet or those Christians who claim to speak for others that we find obnoxious and stupid - but please do not assume that Christianity is what any Christian happens to claim it is.

I am a Christian because of a combination of experience and intellectual struggle. I've had a number of experiences which attract me to the idea that there is truth in what Christians have claimed over the centuries. Intellectually I have discovered a range of theological positions that I believe do not require me to abandon common sense or rationality in order to believe this. But the intellect alone will never prove Christianity, the rational mind's role is to create the space in which the heart and soul can operate. One of the obstacles I've had to overcome in order to have faith are not intellectual at all, I've had to abandon assumptions and prejudices, and I've had to attempt to sort the good from the bad, the believable from the absurd, the Christian from the unChristian.

By far the biggest obstacle of all was not the complexity of ideas and attitudes towards God, theology, churches, individual Christians or anything else external to myself.

The biggest obstacle to belief in God, and to God in Christ is our belief in ourselves and other things that are not God. We won't be able to believe in God until we confront and abandon all manner of illusions about ourselves and the world that we create that we believe in stubbornly, and without even recognising them as beliefs. If we see ourselves as we really are, and our situation as it really is then it really isn't hard to believe - it's easy and natural. But it's not easy to give up the false Gods and illusions that stop us from doing this. All the brokenness and unsatisfactoriness of life should be leading us in the right direction, but it generally doesn't.

We can't search for faith without honesty. We don't just need intellectual honesty (which is important) we need emotional, psychological and ethical honesty. And this honesty needs to be applied to ourselves (as subject) every bit as much to the object of our enquiry (Christianity).

You should become a Christian because Christianity is true. But this is something that we believe, we can't prove it. Some Christians put forward beliefs that can be disproved when interrogated with intellectual rigour. In my opinion there are versions of Christianity that can stand up intellectually as well as spiritually, but they will never convince using the intellect alone.

In formal intellectual terms I would not go further than to say Christianity could be true. I happen to believe, however, that it is. If Christianity is true, then Christians are able to go with the grain of the universe, with the forces of love, redemption and justice against the forces of sin, meaningless and despair. And if it is true and you are not a Christian then could there be anything bigger to miss out on?