The Intellectual Burden of "Trust, but verify"
In a world of conflicting truth claims, how do laypeople determine which is correct?
Verification Presupposes Rationality and Comprehension
I am a proponent of the Russian proverb to trust, but verify. In a world where everyone—TikTok atheists, YouTube theologians, Christian scientists proclaiming macroevolution, Christian scientists poking holes in macroevolution— makes confident truth claims which often contradict each other, how does the untrained individual determine what is true? We can’t earn Ph.D’s in everything, but we can’t live as noncommittal intellectual agnostics either.
Here is where the proverb comes in handy: trust. Trust the wise, the honest, and the experienced (and of course God). But also verify. Do your own research, ask other experts, and pray.
Easy enough, right? Not so fast. To verify a truth claim, you must be able to understand it (and not in a warped, straw-man kind of way) and contrast it with conflicting truth claims. As St. Aquinas might say, you must be capable of discerning the truth through reason (and through the grace of the Spirit). But what happens when a truth claim is too niche or complex to fully understand? Then the layman’s task of verification becomes burdensome.
Scientific truth claims typically fall under this banner. For example, I am currently in the midst of a laborious interrogation to compare the truth claims made by Intelligent Design and theistic evolution proponents. I have begun my analysis with the scientific study of abiogenesis, or how life emerged from non-life. Here, the proverb still applies: I first trust in the overlapping conclusions of independent scientists from all sides of the debate, such as the process of microevolution or the importance of biomolecule homochirality to the origin of life. Then I dive into primary literature to verify (or debunk) the disagreements, keeping in mind the plague of irreproducibility in scientific research.
But even though I am trained as a scientist, I find it arduous to whittle down broad disagreements to their foundational scientific principles, and then to dissect the experiments on which those principles are founded. Oftentimes, I am not even able to verify a claim— usually because the underlying experiment wasn’t designed well enough to support its exact conclusion. Entangled in the process of verification is the declaration of a reasonable burden of proof. To prove abiogenesis, for example, do scientists need to demonstrate in vitro formation of a self-replicating cell from inorganic materials, or is that an unreasonable demand given that we cannot perfectly recapitulate the conditions of primitive Earth nor do we have enough time for such processes to occur?
While the layperson may feel flummoxed by the process of verification, they also occupy a useful vantage point as an outsider who doesn’t take (sometimes incorrect) presuppositions for granted. Today, we will adopt the role of the outsider together as we read another apologetic “proof” for Christianity, the author of which cites Scripture in abundance— thus letting us verify his claims independently— and uses a clear, non-academic writing style fitting for the layperson.
The Humble (and Verifiable) Apologist: St. Chrysostom
While most modern apologists write for the everyman, many church fathers made no appreciable effort to simplify their academic writing for the average Roman who varied in literacy. One notable exception is St. John Chrysostom, who had a heart for the poor and wrote his apologia specifically for pagans and uneducated Christians:1
There are few people who would find it an easy thing to sustain their interest throughout a lengthy argument. Some men are naturally indifferent or have devoted themselves and all their energy to worldly affairs; others lack education and have but little knowledge of letters. This is why I judged that I would have to do away with your hesitation and to cut down on the exertion that a lengthy discourse would demand of you. […]
If I keep my argument simple, I hope to win over those who have strong distaste for reading and to get them to listen with full attention to the topic I propose to discuss. I shall not present an explanation carefully embellished with words and phrases. I shall speak in such a way that the house servant, the lady’s maid, the widow, the peddler, the sailor, and the farmer will find my arguments simple and easy to understand.
St. Chrysostom, whose name meant “golden mouth,” was a 4th Century Archbishop and apologist lauded for his preaching and his care for the poor. Like many Church Fathers before him, St. Chrysostom was highly educated: he was trained by the pagan Libanius in rhetoric and by the Christian theologian Diodore of Tarsus, who founded one of the best theology schools at the time. St. Chrysostom was also an ascetic, refusing to attend parties thrown by wealthy citizens and openly criticizing the opulence of the Emperor (which eventually led to his exile).
Today, we will study his apologetic text: A Demonstration against the Pagans that Christ is God, the style of which is mimics Plato’s Apology of Socrates2. In this work, he explains how Jesus unleashed rapid and widespread growth of the early Christian church as foreshadowed by the Old Testament.
As noted above, St. Chrysostom writes for men who lack a formal education, but also for men who lack interest in theology; in his unflattering words, for the “ignorant and ill-informed.” In his honor, we will keep our summary of his apologia concise and easy-to-understand.
Understandable Theology
St. Chrysostom’s goal is to prove that Jesus is God. He first makes note of which arguments he finds ineffective for a pagan audience: those based off of appeals to miracles or to Christ’s resurrection (basically anything that presupposes God’s divinity). If he argues from divinity, he says that “[t]he pagan will not only reject my arguments but he will laugh at them as well.” This is an interesting contrast to many modern apologists who identify Christ’s resurrection as the pivotal aspect of Christianity and set about to prove that from the start.
St. Chrysostom begins by listing his arguments made to the pagan. I’ll recapture and further distill his writing style using bullet points:
Only a God could have spread the Church so far so quickly; a mortal man couldn’t have accomplished this feat.
A mere mortal could not “bring under his sway so much land and sea in so short a time”3 without military, financial, or societal influence, none of which Christ had.
Christianity’s spread is notable both in terms of geographic span (“to the desert, the villages, the fields, the islands, the ship basins, and harbors”) and the cultural and economic diversity of its converts (Romans, Persians, and barbarians, as well as “simple citizens and […] those who wear the imperial crown”).4
These characteristics of Christianity’s method of dissemination are suggestive of supernatural origins:
It spread without forcing its new converts through war, conquest or money (none of which were employed by the early church).
It spread despite persecution and disrespect towards its founder: “the whole world was waging war against him, when they jeered at him”5
It spread to men who already had easy lives and deep cultural roots: it bid these men to “drag down their ancestral laws” and abandon their “easygoing li[ves] to his own program of austerity”6
It initially spread from 11 destitute men, not from influential figures.
The incarnation of the Word did not just happen, but was foretold (in remarkable detail!) by multiple prophets in the Old Testament.
The prophet Jeremiah foretold that God would become man yet remain God
St. Chrysostom cites the Old Testament book Baruch to make this claim. Baruch is used by the Catholics and Orthodox but not the Protestants; it is named after Jeremiah’s scribe.
Baruch 3:35-37: “This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men.”
The prophet Isaiah foretold that Jesus would become man, born of a virgin, from David’s lineage
Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel [with us is God].”
Isaiah 11: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse [the father of David]” (read the whole thing; lots of rich prophecy)
Jeremiah 23:5: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely.”
Prophets foretold the details of Christ’s coming: that it would appear peaceful, quiet, and ordinary, and that it would be in Bethlehem
Psalm 72:6: “He shall come down like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth”
Isaiah 42:3: “A bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench, until he brings judgment to victory”
Micah 5:5-6: “And you, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, are by no means the least among the princes of Judah. For out of you will come the leader who will shepherd my people, Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity”
Specifics about Christ’s miracles were also foretold.
Isaiah 35:5-6: “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened, then will the ears of the deaf hear; then will the lame man leap like a stag”
Christ promised to build a Church in a fallen world which would stand the test of time and persecution— and that’s exactly what has happened.
Matthew 16:18: “Upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
St. Chrysostom tells us not to underestimate two “tyrannical factors [which] opposed this change: habit and pleasure.” Christ’s religion didn’t promise riches; it led to poverty, temperance, mildness, and kindliness. These are not traits natural to man, nor are they traits we would associate with power and success.
Where I agree…
St. Chrysostom certainly has a right to marvel at the spread of Christianity from humble beginnings of a few poorly educated and non-influential followers. It is also admirable that the Church has stood the test of time through thousands of years of persecution and has spread through varied lands and cultures, pulling people away from steeped traditions of all sorts and setting them on the narrow and steep road to Christ.
The prophecies in the Old Testament also cannot be easily dismissed. They derive from multiple OT books, five of which (Baruch, Isaiah, Psalms, Jeremiah and Micah) are cited above, although there are many more prophecies to be explored. The skeptic can respond to these prophecies by saying either that 1.) they don’t actually foretell Christ’s coming and actions on Earth / Christ did not fulfill the messianic prophecies (the Jewish position) or 2.) they are forgeries written after Christ had already come.
To the first objection: certain prophecies are vague, but some are so specific as to have incited controversy about when they were written; read them and verify for yourself. To the second objection: to dismiss multiple verses across at least five OT books as forgery is to disagree with Jewish tradition (the same OT books are included in the Jewish Tanakh, albeit in different order and with differing interpretations) and to dismiss the credibility of the Bible as a whole. Historical inquiry into each individual book may be useful here (for example, the Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsaa contains the entire Book of Isaiah and is dated by two methods to be from 356 - 100 BCE, meaning its prophecies couldn’t have been added in after Christ’s incarnation and death), but a thorough study on the overall trustworthiness, accuracy, and integrity of the Bible is needed.
…and where I disagree
I don’t find the latter aspect of St. Chrysostom’s apologia, where he discusses the early expansion of Christianity, to be convincing. The rapid and wide spread of a religion doesn’t have to be an act of God. The explosion of Christianity from humble beginnings despite great and early persecution is a low-probability event, but that doesn’t mean it is miraculous or aided by a divine being. Obviously, Christianity isn’t the only world religion to have experienced rapid dissemination and growth: while Christians are currently the largest religious group, Islam is the fastest-growing major religion and its numbers are projected to approach Christianity’s by 2050.
Also, while there are several of the unique aspects of Christianity’s spread, its uniqueness does not beget divinity. Nonetheless, these unique aspects are also recognized by secular scholars today: for example, as St. Chrysostom marveled, early Christianity “did not spread from the center of political, military and economic power.”7 By contrast, the early spread of Islam “was associated with conquering military forces” where Arab armies offered an opportunity for many conquered peoples to be “set […] free from oppressive rule and persecution.” Buddhism, on the other hand, was spread through “ascending societies, particularly the rulers” who were offered Buddhism as a resource “in their struggles to establish strong and stable societies.”8 It is amazing that Christianity initially spread without the aid of worldly powers, but this doesn’t prove God’s involvement (and it renders Christianity’s later spread to the Americas by conquerors and European immigrants somewhat awkward).
In Conclusion
I began this post by admiring St. Chrysostom’s humility and concern for the layperson. We all know of stodgy writers who prioritize the production of refined works over clarity and communication. St. Chrysostom wasn’t one of them, and yet his clarity also carried with it beauty and eloquence. His style is worthy of emulation, if not the entirety of his content.
Chrysostom, John. Christian Apologetics Past and Present (Volume 1, To 1500). (Crossway Books, 2009), 352.
Ibid., 350.
Ibid., 354.
Ibid., 355.
Ibid., 354.
Ibid., 355.
Montgomery, Robert L. “The Spread of Religions and Macrosocial Relations.” Sociological Analysis 52, no. 1 (1991): 43. https://doi.org/10.2307/3710714.
Ibid., 40.