Home

GunNewsDaily.com
 

The Suspension of Disbelief and the Gospel

William Lolli

Gun News Daily Contributing Editor

 

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”

2 Peter 1:16  “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty”

On  September 12, 2007 in a now famous US Senate report to Congress, Senator Hillary Clinton responded to General David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. She said:

"You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy" in Iraq, Clinton said. "Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."

Many Americans scratched their heads at this term “suspension of disbelief”, which in a matter of hours has etched its way firmly into the American political lexicon.

What does it mean? Was this political double-speak? Was it something that Elizabeth Bennett said to Mr. Darcy while they danced in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice?

It seems like such an odd turn-of-phrase a politician would use when assessing matters of national security, where clarity to the American people would seem to be a paramount concern, and where the fate of nations hangs upon what the United States will or will not do in a divisive war.

As it turns out, Wikipedia tells us the origins of the phrase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

[The] Suspension of disbelief is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize people's relationships to art. It was coined by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817 to refer to what he called "dramatic truth". It refers to the alleged willingness of a reader or viewer to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic, impossible, or otherwise contradictory to "reality". It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.

According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is an essential ingredient in the enjoyment of many B-grade science fiction films and television series such as the early series of Doctor Who, where the audience willingly ignores low-budget "cheesy" props and occasional plot holes, in order to fully engage with the enjoyable story — which may be the more so for those additions to its inherent outrageousness.

Suspension of disbelief is also supposed to be essential for the enjoyment of many movies and TV shows involving complex stunts, special effects, and seemingly "unrealistic" plots. The theory professes to explain why action movie fans are willing to accept the idea that the good guy can get away with shooting guns in public places, or never running out of ammunition, or that cars will explode with a well-placed shot to the gas tank.”

It also explains why Clark Kent is never discovered to be Superman by Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, even when they catch Clark at times without his glasses.

With this new understanding of the concept of the Suspension of Disbelief, the alleged outrage of Move-on.org’s slander against General Petraeus as a traitor, calling him General Betray Us, is really mild when compared to Senator Clinton’s claim that the report that the General submitted to Congress was fantastic in the extreme—and indeed, so fantastic that it required a Suspension of Disbelief, and therefore was as disconnected to reality as Batman, Star Wars, or the Easter Bunny.

Likewise, the Gospel of Jesus Christ—the actual Good News that a Sinner can be Saved by a belief in Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross—could be viewed by the skeptic as requiring a Suspension of Disbelief.

Huh? How can that be?

Well, consider Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”

To the Natural Man, educated in the public schools and Universities and taught all the modern sciences, to adhere to the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, a requirement to obtain a willing suspension of his disbelief may be necessary just so the concept may form in his mind.

Indeed—whereas Faith may be said to be a trust in what God has claimed and said as true, the suspension of disbelief may be required before you could ever believe and trust in God.

If you went up to a non-believer and witnessed to him with a barrage of Biblical Truths—such as the Flood of Noah, Jonah in the Fish for 3 days, the parting of the Red Sea, or other equally supernatural facts, the Biblical Truths themselves may be viewed as so bizarre and fantastic as to require a Suspension of Disbelief on his part, before you could get your Biblical foot in the door to deliver the message of God’s love.

In my imagination I can see how Peter addressed this problem in part, with his proclamation of 2 Peter 1:16—that they did not follow cleverly devised fables. In the modern vernacular, “I know all this sounds fantastic, but hey, we didn’t make this stuff up.” 

Paul the Apostle was wise to start out with the Athenians in Acts 17:23 talking to them about the Unknown God as a reference point. If he had started out with Genesis 1:1 and its implications, or that Noah was 500 years old before he had 3 sons, or jumped right into Jesus being God incarnate, he would have lost his audience having stretched their Suspension of Disbelief beyond Belief.

It can thus be asserted that before there is Faith [a true trusting in God], there must be an initial belief in what God said is true. And before there is belief in what God said is true, there must be a willing ear to listen, and open heart to not dismiss out-of-hand the radical claims of God’s love.

Indeed, a Willing Suspension of Disbelief may be just what a person needs to loosen a stiff neck and a hardened heart in matters dealing with both the Almighty and with Statecraft.

Was it something I said? If this commentary has effected you to respond, you can send your reactions directly to me at

william.lolli@gunnewsdaily.com

 

Home