Daily Egyptian Reporter 22

In the tradition of Jesus Christ, Mark Ashton travels from community to community, preaching the word of God.

My farthest-reaching goal is to simply educate others in areas which they had previously held minimal knowledge, said Ashton, a seventh-year staff member of campus ministry at the University of Illinois-Champaign.

Advertisement

Ashton said his strength as a minister resides in the evidence he uses to support his teachings.

Many religions require unconditional faith, Ashton said. To me, blind faith is intellectual suicide.

Ashton arrived on the SIUC campus Friday night as the lone panel speaker in a discussion called Is Christianity Credible? The event, promoted by SIUC’s Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, took place at Lawson Hall.

Ashton said his greatest hope for the event was to provide an unbiased forum for discussion.

Religion is a highly sensitive topic, Ashton said. It’s not often that people holding opposing religious views get to come together in a civil environment and compare notes.

One of Ashton’s foremost concerns Friday was keeping the discussion as informal as he could.

Although I believe strongly in what I defend, I don’t wish to project an arrogant or complacent tone, Ashton said. I want to remain as much a student as a teacher.

Advertisement*

But Joshua Larson, one of more than 50 audience members, said Ashton’s defense could not have been more convincing.

After listening to his entire argument, I just don’t see how anyone can disagree, Larson, a freshman in psychology, said.

Ashton’s argument is one that he describes as unlike that of many of his contemporary Christian ministers.

Much of today’s ministry relies heavily on blind faith, Ashton said. Faith is only as good as the object you place your faith in.

It is this reluctance of blind faith that operates as the backbone to Ashton’s defense of Christianity.

I advocate intellectual faith, Ashton said. The difference between blind faith and intellectual faith is evidence.

Ashton’s evidence began with a three-fold defense of the accuracy of the New Testament.

The New Testament is a self-pronounced historical document, a generally non-conflicting account from a number of sources close to Christ himself and a collection of dates and places supported by archaeologists and historians alike, he said.

Next, Ashton compared the time gap between the writing of the New Testament and its first manuscript to that of other notable historical documents.

Caesar’s history of the Gallic Wars, while first documented in 50 B.C., was not transcribed to manuscript until 850 A.D., said Ashton. We accept this as reliable historical fact with 900 years in between the translation.

The New Testament, first documented in 90 A.D., was transcribed to manuscript form only 35 years later. Considering this, I don’t see how one could question its accuracy.

The remainder of Ashton’s defense relied mostly on validating Christ’s resurrection.

Ashton attempted to do so primarily by discrediting popular opposing theories.

One popular anti-resurrection theory is that Jesus’ enemies stole the body, Ashton said. The reason that this is implausible is that stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb would only validate his own prophecies.

Another popular anti-resurrection theory is that Jesus’ friends (the apostles) stole the body. This would mean that all 10 of the remaining apostles, all who would eventually die for their connection with Jesus, would have to have committed their lives to a man that they knew was a fraud.

The third theory, Ashton said, assumes that Christ never died.

This is implausible for a number of reasons, Ashton said, the most decisive one being that there was no way Jesus, a man who was at least severely injured if not dead, could not have escaped out of the tomb and past the Roman guard with his entire body wrapped in cloth.

Once finished with his defense of Christianity, Ashton addressed audience questions for about an hour.

Ashton’s argument, although met with a barrage of questions, was ultimately deemed generally convincing by the audience members.

John Longmire, a junior in English education, was pleased with the presentation.

Although I think that the purpose of the event could have been better served with a more diverse panel, Longmire said, it was a fairly convincing defense of Christianity.

Ashton himself, amidst the praise and criticism, found the discussion entirely rewarding.

I’m glad I got to speak to as many people as I did tonight, Ashton said. Being able to share faiths with other people is what helps me to evolve as a Christian, but more importantly, as a person.