About Me

My name is Rebecca and I'm the reluctant apologist. I decided to follow Jesus in 2010 and because of that decision, I have been radically changed. For my whole life, I did not believe there was evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Even though I knew there were some historical facts that backed up my faith, I didn't have a desire to know what they were. I knew that others I trusted knew those facts, and that was enough for me at the time. In fact, I didn't even know I could call that evidence - until I learned the definition of evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." And specifically historical evidence: "anything directly related to some event, person, or period of the past. It reveals information that might help us better understand what happened previous to our examination." 

Think of a court room -  a witness statement is a type of evidence. According to Google via womenslaw.org, "testimony is a kind of evidence, and it is often the only evidence that a judge has when deciding a case." This evidence is often enough to determine the truth, looking for the most likely explanation for the evidence presented.  

ALL evidence must be interpreted. Historical evidence is no different. The only evidence we have of the Roman Empire existing is historical evidence. Yet to deny that the Roman Empire existed would be unsubstantiated, given the overwhelming amount of historical evidence that leads to the most likely explanation being the existence of the Roman Empire. Was it all a hoax? Well, there is no evidence backing up the claim that the Roman Empire was all a hoax. We have come to the conclusion based on the historical evidence that the Roman Empire was real, and many other facts about it. The same is true about historical evidence for Jesus and his resurrection.

At the end of 2022, I came to the realization that having an experience of Jesus' transformation in me was one kind of evidence that supported my faith, but it shouldn't be the only thing I base my conclusions on. After all, many people cite the same reason for believing all types of religions. Latter-Day Saints often give the "burning in the bosom" feeling for confirmation of their belief. Members of Anonymous groups can bring up their personal transformation as evidence of a "higher power" in their life, which can literally be anything including the universe or the group itself. So basing our faith on our feelings or experience alone is not enough.

So what do I do? Believe blindly? No, that is not wise - how would we choose what to blindly believe? No, faith should not be blind. (Red Pen Logic has a wonderful short video explaining that Christian faith is not blind.)

So reluctantly, I started researching. I started looking at the evidence. I used to believe that apologetics was, for most people, not necessary, and possibly harmful. "Apologist" is defined as "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial."  I knew of debates between Christian apologists and atheists that of course didn't change the minds of those debating, and I couldn't see the point. It felt futile because I only saw the two people on the stage and failed to realize there might be audience members seeking truth. I began to recognize the value of knowing the evidence and researching the arguments. Not just the arguments for, but hearing the arguments against and seeking the truth above all. I realized that my beliefs didn't matter if they weren't true. Now I look for the truth above all else. If the Bible told me that Jesus was "the way, the truth, and the life," then even according to a Christian worldview, seeking the truth is a worthy pursuit. So reluctantly, I began to research the evidence. Reluctantly, I became an apologist.