The letter began, “Why are you so anti-Shroud? Why are you picking on the Sign From God group?“
Fair question.
Let me say this clearly: I’m not anti-Shroud in the sense of wanting it to be false. In fact, for more than 20 years, I believed it was authentic. I hoped it was. I defended it. Only by gradually reconsidering the evidence—scientific, historical, and theological—did I come to believe that it likely is not what many claim it to be. That shift wasn’t easy. It came through honest reflection and a growing discomfort with the claims being made too easily, and too certainly.
So no, I’m not “anti.” And I’m certainly not against the people involved in the Sign From God Foundation. I know some of them personally. Some are friends. They’re well-intentioned, sincere, and passionate about sharing their faith. I admire that. My concern—perhaps even my urgency—comes from not wanting them to make the same mistake I made: rooting their outreach efforts in something that might not hold up under scrutiny.
For one thing, it’s their mission statement that gives me pause. The Sign From God Foundation declares: “The Sign From God Foundation Inc. believes the face of the man of the Shroud is a ‘sign from God’ revealing the Glory of God. Our mission is to utilize the Shroud as an evangelization tool to promote and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially to a new generation, the least Christian generation in recent history.“
Now, I don’t personally believe the Shroud is a sign from God. But I can understand how someone might come to that conclusion in good faith. I don’t take issue with the belief itself, and I won’t quibble over whether this is truly the “least Christian generation”—that depends on what criteria we use.
Where I do have concerns is with the stated goal of using the Shroud as an evangelization tool.
Yes, Christians are called to evangelize. And if an artifact—any artifact—can help someone come to better understand or appreciate the Gospel message, that’s worth celebrating. But the Shroud of Turin is not just any artifact. It’s a highly controversial object whose authenticity is still being debated by scientists, historians, and theologians alike.
That’s where I think the Sign From God group risks doing harm. The ethical dilemma is this: Is it wise—or responsible—to root evangelization efforts in something so questionable? Does it do justice to the Gospel to lean on an artifact that may one day be thoroughly discredited or simply fade into irrelevance?
There’s a kind of spiritual buyer’s remorse that can come when someone’s new faith is built on shaky evidence. When they begin to question the artifact, they may also begin to question the faith that was tied to it. This isn’t just bad strategy—it can be damaging to souls.
Jesus warned us about building on weak foundations. At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, he offered a striking image:
Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock… And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand… and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:24–27)
To build someone’s faith on the uncertain foundation of a debated relic is, I fear, like building on sand. When the storms of doubt, disappointment, or further scholarship come—and they will—the house risks collapse.
Christianity, from its beginning, has always been a religion grounded in faith, supported by Scripture, enriched by tradition, and deepened by the lived experiences of saints, mystics, and scholars across the centuries. Faith, in this context, is not belief based on artifacts—it is trust that leads to belief despite the inability to prove.
If the Sign From God Foundation simply rephrased its message—if it acknowledged the unresolved nature of the Shroud’s origins and instead framed its project as a set of open questions rather than promotional “facts”—I’d be among the first to salute their sincerity.
But to present speculative claims as definitive, and then build evangelization efforts on top of them? That’s what troubles me.
Let faith be what it has always been: trust in what we cannot prove but have come to believe.