And this is why the idea of the Shroud of Turin …
If God were unmistakably present—if He stood at the end of every microscope and thundered at the edge of every cloud—then belief would not be faith but submission. We would be overwhelmed, not persuaded. True love–agape–requires freedom, and freedom requires the possibility of disbelief. The silence of God is not abandonment, but permission. It allows us to seek Him honestly, to respond without coercion. Like a parent stepping back so a child can learn to walk, God’s hiddenness creates space for us to grow.
God does not argue for His own existence in Scripture. Instead, He tells stories. He calls people by name. He appears in burning bushes, dreams, and whispers. Never overwhelming, always inviting. This is not weakness. This is divine restraint—a strength that values relationship more than dominance.
The spiritual life is not a steady ascent but a meandering path marked by longing, doubt, and silence. Many of the greatest saints and mystics speak of the dark night of the soul—times when God seems absent or indifferent. Yet these are often the very seasons in which the soul is refined. We stop depending on feelings, miracles, and certainties and begin to trust in a deeper, quieter presence.
C.S. Lewis, in A Grief Observed, describes prayer as knocking at a door that is not only closed, but seemingly bolted and barred. And yet he continues to knock. That is the paradox of divine hiddenness: even when God is silent, we are drawn toward Him. It is not proof that sustains the believer, but fidelity.
If God constantly interfered—suspending natural laws, altering outcomes, announcing His will like a cosmic news ticker—then the world would lose its stability. History would become theater. Science would be futile. Our actions would have no meaning if they were always overridden.
But a hidden God allows creation to be itself. The world runs on laws that can be studied and understood. History unfolds through the choices of free agents. We are participants, not spectators. God’s hiddenness grants us dignity and responsibility. It is a sign of how seriously He takes our role in His creation.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the crucifixion. Jesus, whom Christians affirm as God incarnate, does not die with a halo or a heavenly choir. He dies humiliated, abandoned, crying out, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” This is the God who does not just permit hiddenness, but enters into it. There is no divine rescue, no escape from pain—only silence and darkness. And yet, Christians believe, this is the center of redemption.
The resurrection, too, comes in secret. No public triumph. No dazzling spectacle in the streets of Jerusalem. Just quiet appearances to friends, private recognitions, and meals shared. God remains hidden—even in triumph.
And this is why the idea of the Shroud of Turin—or any object—as physical confirmation of the resurrection ultimately misses the point. For those who believe the cloth is authentic, it is often treated not only as a relic, but as a kind of evidentiary anchor: that Jesus truly died, that He rose, and that this cloth somehow bears the imprint of that divine event. But if God chose to remain hidden even in the moment of resurrection—appearing only to a few, quietly, without spectacle—why would He now choose to compel belief through linen and laboratory tests? To treat the resurrection as something to be proven by cloth fibers and chemical residues is to flatten mystery into material, and divine love into demonstration. It reverses everything hiddenness makes possible—freedom, faith, relationship. The Shroud may be meaningful. It may even be ancient and beautiful. But it is not proof of the resurrection. And it was never meant to be.
This kind of love—the love that does not force, that invites but never imposes—is what Christian theology calls agape. It is self-giving, patient, and free. It is the love that “does not insist on its own way” (1 Corinthians 13). Agape love does not manipulate. It respects the beloved’s freedom, even when that means remaining hidden, waiting to be found. A God of agape love will never shout over us, only whisper beside us.
Faith was never intended to be founded on artifacts. It is rooted in relationship. Sustained not by certainty, but by trust. The God who hides does not abandon us—He calls us deeper, into mystery, into freedom, and into love.
Postscript
Much of this reflection owes its shape to a man I met in 1963, during a long afternoon conversation that has stayed with me ever since. He spoke of faith with depth, restraint, and conviction—and helped me begin to understand that God’s silence may not be His absence, but a gift of freedom. I owe him more than I ever told him. He is perhaps the reason I am a Christian today.
Hi, Dan,
Just a quick response as I only had a chance to read a couple of sentences—I’ll read through the rest a bit later when I get a chance. But, I wanted to say this: God does, indeed, “argue for his own existence.” Jesus performed miracles for people to see his power as He declared Himself to be THE Son of Man, and He made it clear that He is divine. Yet, the power of free will is very strong. Even Jesus’ disciples needed to see Him risen to fully comprehend that Jesus is really Lord. The Jews knew what was going on, yet many did not convert. Therefore, free-will is still intact, especially since some people are opposed in principle to being submissive to anyone—God or otherwise.
Best regards,
Teddi
One more thing. The fact that people such as yourself and Hugh-who know the Shroud evidence more than most people—persist in denying that It is what It is—is firm proof that It does not overcome free-will, but It draws the faithful close through gazing upon the Holy Face and the knowledge that Christ’s blood in Its physical form is still with us on this earth.
Hi, again, Dan,
You mention: “Jesus, whom Christians affirm as God incarnate, does not die with a halo or a heavenly choir. He dies humiliated, abandoned, crying out, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” This is the God who does not just permit hiddenness, but enters into it.”
I think we have a situation where you see the glass as “half empty” whereas I see it as “half-full.” God made His presence abundantly clear for all to see with Jesus’ resurrection–with the last 3 (a very significant number pointing to the Holy Trinity) hours before Jesus’ death at 3 pm on what many experts have calculated to be the 3rd day of April in 33 AD, we have the inexplicable Darkness that could not have been an eclipse, because there was the traditional full moon for Passover. That does not seem very hidden to me. Moreover, when Jesus took His last breath, the temple curtain was torn in two–from top to bottom. Is this hidden to you? With the earthquake and the resurrection of innumerable saints as reported in Matthew, that does not seem very hidden to me, either. In fact, it is a bold proclamation of God’s presence that, nonetheless, does not impede free will–as many witnessed this yet did not become Christians although man did–including, reportedly from Christian tradition, Longinus.
And, while the Resurrection occurred only in the private presence of God, Himself–just as there were no human witnesses at the dawn of Creation, God has left us evidence of it that remains with us.
To view the Holy Shroud merely as evidence to prove God’s existence is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s God’s taking us to His bosom in a way that cannot be done with a faceless, incomprehensible idea of God. This is, precisely, why I believe that God became Man–so that we can relate to Him, so that we can understand His pain in Gethsemane when He sweated blood and asked His Father to remove this cup from Him, when He suffered on the Cross while watching His mother in agony witnessing the unimaginable. We have our Lord’s Face on the Holy Shroud, and we can gaze into it the way we gaze at our loved ones in photographs. We know that our Lord’s sacrificial blood is physically contained on this cloth, and that is a reminder that His blood is not just present during Holy Communion in a mystical way, but it is physically present on earth with us, still. That means that there is still a PHYSICAL CONNECTION to God Incarnate that STILL EXISTS in this world.
When I was a freshman in college and went with my friends to Washington, D.C. for Spring Break, we visited Ford’s Theater and then we went to the house across the street where President Lincoln was taken and then died. I still remember seeing the bloody pillow that was there for us to see. Lincoln, himself, was no longer there, but a piece of him was, and there was a connection that I felt to him be being in the presence of his blood–something that had been a part of him. The same concept occurs with the Holy Shroud except that it is elevated to a level that is worthy of a Deity–a portrait of our Lord for us to see Him and His iconic wounds, and His blood which further draws us closer to God Incarnate in a way that cannot be done with the Father. But, that was all by design. God loves His paradoxes. He is both God and Man while being both hidden and present.
Best regards,
Teddi
And, I forgot to add, that with Christ’s portrait, it is no ordinary portrait but one that is of miraculous origin. Enough science has been conducted to where the burden of proof has shifted away from those who claim the body images to be acheiropoeita, and now the burden of proof to prove that it is not a miracle is on those who doubt it.
I think that there is a certain psychology that is exhibited in Christians who dismiss the Holy Shroud’s authenticity. I think that they think that they score extra points with God by not “needing” the Holy Shroud as evidence for their belief in God. But, again, Jesus never asked people to have blind faith in Him. He performed miracles to demonstrate to people that He was divine. And, for Him to give us a gift of His portrait and blood and to not only not accept it but to deny it, demonstrates a lack of gratitude for a gift that is designed to bring us even closer to Him.
Hello Teddi.
I tried to sent you e-mail response several times, but always have hard bounces. Do you have some alternative address?
Generally agree with what you wrote here.
Hi, O.K.,
I have no idea why your email is not getting through to me. I can be reached at TeddiPappas@aol.com. I will, also, send you an email as soon as I finish writing this message to you. Perhaps there will not be a problem if you just cut and paste your prior response to a response to the one I will send you. Perhaps that will work.
Thank you,
Teddi
All right. i sent you a test response. Can you confirm you got it?
Bounce. The problem is, I can receive your e-mail, but I cannot respond. I have to figure it out.
Teddi, thank you for taking the time to write with such conviction and depth. What you’ve shared is not just thoughtful—it’s moving. You’ve painted a picture of a God who breaks through into the world with power and intimacy, who reveals Himself in both miraculous events and sacramental presence. I especially appreciated your reflection on the Shroud as a personal connection to the suffering and sacrificial love of Christ—something akin to holding onto a loved one’s photograph or a treasured relic. That’s beautifully said.
I also agree with you, to a point: there is indeed a kind of paradox in God’s self-revelation. He is at once hidden and revealed. The Gospels themselves bear witness to that tension—sometimes Jesus heals in full view, other times He tells people not to speak of it. Sometimes He teaches in plain words; sometimes in parables. Sometimes His glory is glimpsed, as at the Transfiguration—but even then, it’s only to a few. As you rightly say, the tearing of the temple curtain and the darkness at the crucifixion are indeed bold events. They’re signs. But even those signs weren’t overwhelming in the sense of ending debate. People who witnessed these things responded in different ways—some with conversion, others with denial or even hostility.
And that’s where I think we might diverge just a little.
For me—and I suspect for many others—the heart of faith is not certainty but trust. Not the absence of doubt, but fidelity in the midst of mystery. I don’t believe that skepticism toward the Shroud is necessarily psychological or rooted in pride, as if it were a refusal to be grateful for a divine gift. On the contrary, I believe it can be rooted in a different understanding of how God chooses to be present to us. Some of us simply find it hard to reconcile the idea of forensic, material “proof” with the nature of a God who chose to rise in secret, to reveal Himself not to emperors and crowds, but to women in a garden and fishermen on the shore.
This doesn’t diminish the Shroud’s significance. It may indeed be ancient, sacred, and profoundly meaningful to many believers. But when it’s treated as scientific proof—when it’s said that the “burden of proof” now rests with skeptics—I begin to wonder whether the Shroud is being asked to bear a theological weight it was never meant to carry. That doesn’t mean it’s fraudulent or trivial. It means that belief—true belief—can’t ultimately rest on cloth or carbon dating or chemical tests. It must rest on a Person, and on the witness of those who encountered Him in love.
We may see these things differently, but I truly value your voice in the conversation. Your reverence for the Shroud and the way it has deepened your connection to Christ is a testimony in its own right. I’m grateful you’ve shared it.
And Teddi, I must add: your reflections on the Shroud stirred something in me, especially your sense of physical connection—of presence. And I found myself thinking of something that might point to where we do, in fact, agree at a very deep level.
I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist—that in the bread and wine, through the words of institution and the work of the Spirit, something truly miraculous happens. I believe in transubstantiation, that the substance becomes the body and blood of Christ, even while the appearance remains unchanged. There is mystery here, and yet for me, it’s not the evidence of Christ’s presence that matters, but the faithful encounter with it. I don’t ask the consecrated host for proof. I don’t need to analyze it chemically to affirm what I believe is truly happening. No microscope, n scientific evidence can tell us. I receive it with trust.
Perhaps the difference with the Shroud is this: for me, it is not a sacrament. It is not instituted by Christ, nor does it offer grace in itself. It may be a powerful symbol, even a relic—but I approach it as I would any historical or devotional object: with reverence, but not with certainty that it carries the burden of proving divine reality.
The Eucharist calls me to faith, not proof. And I would say the same of the Resurrection itself. It happened in history, yes—but its power is in its transformation of lives, not its replicability in a lab.
That doesn’t mean I reject the Shroud outright. It means I approach it differently. I trust God is present—truly and deeply—even in silence, in mystery, and in those places where no cloth or artifact can reach.
Hi, Dan,
Sometimes, it can be helpful to look at an issue in a different way–through an analogy. Although analogies are not perfect comparisons, sometimes it is through the imperfections of the comparison that a deeper understanding emerges from the making of the analogy. I will endeavor to do that now with a story that will just pour forth from me as I write it, below.
Best regards,
Teddi
Imagine that there is a little girl who is an orphan. Her mother died in childbirth while her father was a soldier at war defending their homeland. The father was captured by the enemy and underwent protracted torture to reveal important secrets that the enemy knew that he had which would enable them to win the war. Despite the horrific torture, the father never divulged the secrets so as to protect both his pregnant wife and his countrymen.
The little girl now lives in a home with her adoptive family. She has no photographs of her father, and she has no idea what he looked like other than that he was a male of a certain age and ethnicity and that he was a national hero. One day, the daughter receives a strange visit from someone claiming to have been a close friend of her father’s and who had fought with him on the battlefield and was a fellow prisoner-of-war with her father. The father died at the hands of his torturers, but the friend survived and was later freed when the war ended. This man tells the little girl that he has a photograph of her father that contains his blood at the time of his death at the hands of his torturers. The man gives this bloodstained photograph to the girl with no request or expectation or desire for anything in return, and he takes nothing in return for the gift that he gives his friend’s daughter.
With this alleged photograph of her father, the daughter now has her father’s face to gaze out. In gazing at her father’s face, neural connections are actually being made which create a previously nonexistent bond between her and her father. Additionally, with her having something containing her father’s blood–that which had given him life–this is a physical piece of him that she now has. She now draws much closer to her daddy that she had no prior physical encounter with.
How far can the depths of one’s love really, honestly go to an amorphous, sterile idea of something or someone? How fine can the connection be between two people who never see or feel each others’ faces? While it might go far with some people, there will still–even in the best of circumstances–be something missing that is due to the mystery.
This is why, in particular, God gave us His Holy Face from His Incarnate Self on the Holy Shroud to gaze upon.
As we gaze upon a face or a photograph of a face, there are actual neural connections that are being made that create a type of bond that, otherwise, would not exist. To see the face of someone that we are interacting with is just a natural, hard-wired longing that humans have. God is our creator, knows this, and we are this way by His design. To see or feel someone’s face brings a closeness between two people that is deeper than, all things being equal, not seeing the person’s face. But, let’s continue with the story.
The daughter’s heart is warmed with, finally, seeing the face of her father. But, people around the girl (who have no knowledge as to what her father looked like) are constantly sowing doubt in her mind about whether the bloodstained photograph that she was given is authentic or not.
In sowing doubt in the girl’s mind, they loudly whisper in the girl’s ear: “How do you know that this man who claimed to be your father’s friend is telling you the Truth? How do you know that the bloodstained photograph that he gave you is really your father?
The girl thinks: But, what did that man have to gain from telling me a lie? She realizes: NOTHING. The man just seemed to want to perform an act of kindness in sharing a gift that would be a great personal treasure to its recipient.
The girl just continues to hear the naysayer’s mantra for her: “That’s not your daddy. That’s not your daddy. That’s not your daddy.”
But, the girl wants to know. Is that my father’s face? As she gets older, she has some financial means to investigate the matter of the bloodstained photograph for herself. She, herself, takes a DNA test. She has DNA testing performed on the blood from the photograph. She wants to ascertain whether or not what the man told her is True (or not.) She seeks scientific answers to give herself a confidence in knowing whether the face that she is gazing at is her father’s or not. She wants to know since she is not interested in believing things that are not True. While, no matter what, she will still have whatever type of relationship she had with her father that she had never actually, physically, interacted with before, she desires a deeper, more complex and much warmer type of relationship with her father–as best as can be accomplished given the reality of the circumstances–that he no longer lives on earth.
She gets the test results back and compares them. She knows that no test is 100% perfect. Yet, there is a match that confirms, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what the man told her is True. Now, in her mind, there is the pleasing and comforting “shout from the mountaintop” that: “He is your daddy. He is your daddy. He is your daddy.”
There is great love in the gift that the man gave the girl. And, until the girl came to understand the powerful Truth about the bloodstained photograph that she had been given, the naysayers were inflicting great damage upon this girl for no real reason other than just to say “Nay.”
Hi, O.K.,
Very strange. While I do not often check my gmail account, I will. Please try this address: 1teddipappas@gmail.com. Or, you could, perhaps, send the message through Joe Marino if this other email does not work. This is particularly strange since I had received your first response to my email ?2 weeks ago or so. Bizarre, but somewhat common when emailing matters pertaining to the Holy Shroud.
All the best,
Teddi
I sent. Can you confirm you received it?
I often had similar problems with Joe’s e-mail, as well as general in the case of @aol.com addresses. They do not like my address (perhaps because they send too much spam these days). I also have gmail account, but I hardly ever use it (and now it is flooded with spam, mostly Academia.edu and the Shroud related).
But in your case the bounce was pernament. I don’t know why.
Whenever one makes a “why would God do (or not do) that” argument I simply answer, how do you know what God thinks? Do you think you are capable to read into His mind? Do you think you can tell Him “look, you’re doing this wrong, you should do that instead”? (If you think that, then could you please explain why God lets children suffer, or is He getting that wrong too?)
And there isn’t a straightforward answer to “does faith need proof, and exactly how much?” The answer can be different for different persons. As Teddi pointed out, there are always people who can refuse to believe in spite of *any* evidence. There is a prominent example of that in John’s Gospel: when Jesus resurrected Lazarus, one would think that was enough evidence for believing in him. Instead, many people believed, but the Temple priests decided to kill him! So you need not worry that God might be taking your freedom away.
For most people the Shroud may indeed be irrelevant as to whether they believe in God or not. But there are definitely some (few?) people for whom it is key. Maybe God created the Shroud just for them!? God loves each of us personally, so I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that He has done something even for the benefit of a single person. You know the parable of the lost sheep, how He wandered around just to retrieve that single sheep.
Hi Dan,
I don’t have the time to make an entire show responding on the Hiddenness of God, but as a philosopher, I did my area readings on this argument and the various scholarly rebuttals to it- I’m an amateur expert in this atheistic argument!
But since I don’t have the time right now to do a show on it as I’d like, I will just give a couple quick comments on a couple of your main points here for your consideration.
You say: “The resurrection, too, comes in secret. No public triumph. No dazzling spectacle in the streets of Jerusalem. Just quiet appearances to friends, private recognitions, and meals shared. God remains hidden—even in triumph… And this is why the idea of the Shroud of Turin—or any object—as physical confirmation of the resurrection ultimately misses the point”.
MY REPLY: As Gerardo alludes, exploring into divine psychology to conclude that God could or couldn’t do this or that is often fraught with error; the godless do this all the time, arguing that God’s MO is NOT to raise people from the dead and on this basis, they proceed to conclude that God couldn’t raise Jesus from the dead at all. Your reasoning here shares the same sorts of problematic evaluations of God and His providential will.
What’s worse is that I think you entirely misrepresent the Resurrection miracle and its purpose; in so doing, you miss the point. Firstly, Jesus’ miracles authenticating Him and His message outside of the Resurrection were given to any and all (including the disbelievers), the appearances of the Risen Jesus were given to multiple individuals and groups, including to 500 brethren at once (that’s not just a few), and finally, you don’t seem to understand the Biblical scholarship surrounding the distinction between Jesus’ first and second comings.
The Bible describes not the Resurrection event in 30 A.D., but Jesus’ 2nd coming as the “Parousia (/pəˈruːziə/; Greek: παρουσία)”- the ancient Greek word meaning presence, arrival, or official visit and which was the exact same word used to describe the Roman triumphs starting with Augustus and then subsequent Emperors. Jesus triumphal return, his Parousia, is yet to come in the future with His return (not His first coming with the Resurrection) and that is explicitly said to be public and seen by all. So the Resurrection was not intended to be His “public triumph” at all!
According to your logic, are we to deny the 2nd coming of Christ as reversing “everything hiddenness makes possible—freedom, faith, relationship”. If not, then I submit, the fact that Jesus did not appear in His Resurrection body to Caiaphas or other skeptical Jews has nothing to do with some misguided notion of compelling faith on their part or imposing His will on them. There was another providential reason for it (which I alluded to in my Oh Danny Boy show on your Radiation blog post). But for now, my point is that providing evidence for a given miracle of God does not and cannot compel anyone to place their faith in Christ and this leads me to the other point I wish to mention.
YOU SAY: “the Shroud of Turin—or any object—as physical confirmation of the resurrection ultimately misses the point… if God chose to remain hidden even in the moment of resurrection—appearing only to a few, quietly, without spectacle—why would He now choose to compel belief through linen and laboratory tests? This kind of love—the love that does not force, that invites but never imposes—is what Christian theology calls agape. It is self-giving, patient, and free. It is the love that “does not insist on its own way” (1 Corinthians 13). Agape love does not manipulate. It respects the beloved’s freedom, even when that means remaining hidden, waiting to be found.”
MY REPLY: Your argument of God providing evidence for the truth of his claims, via artifact or any other method, makes no sense. The miracle of the Resurrection was intended to be a sign- a sign that Jesus truly was who He said He was just as all the other miracles he performed publicly were meant to be such. With the Resurrection, God gives us the evidence for that via reliable eyewitness testimonial evidence and the tools of proper historiography and thus, the Resurrection is fully public and has been such since the very beginning (not to mention that God often provided further miraculous proof in front of unbelievers attesting to truth of that testimony of Jesus Resurrection). So, is your argument really saying God is so limited that He can only provide certain types of evidence, the types of evidence that you personally deem appropriate (testimonial evidence but not evidence that is physical in nature)? If God must be hidden to ensure our freedom to love Him, then I would think no types of evidence should be permitted to be given to anyone, Jesus must have been pretty stupid to appear to His disciples, cause none of them actually chose to place their faith in Christ of their own accord or to freely loved Jesus and thus, according to your logic, the Apostle Peter and the rest must have all been damned to Hell as faithless robots compelled to spread the Gospel of Christ without any hope for salvation themselves.
And yet, Jesus used His miraculous proofs to reassure John the Baptist in prison of who he was and was intended to serve as proof for those truly seeking God and His Kingdom. Of course, the hard of heart Jewish leaders also witnessed such miracles and yet, none of them were compelled against their will to place their faith in Jesus, heck He didn’t even inspire them to have a propositional belief in Him as they simply dismissed His actions as demonic in nature (just as Shabir Ally and others have dismissed the supernatural images on the Shroud as being the work of Satan today).
As to artefacts, God uses such all the time on his end. For example, God set up the “Ebenezer stone”. This is a biblical concept, specifically from 1 Samuel 7:12, where the prophet Samuel set up a stone to commemorate God’s victory over the Philistines. The name “Ebenezer” means “stone of help” in Hebrew. It serves as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and miraculous intervention in the lives of His people. Or in Acts 19, he used handkerchiefs and aprons to miraculous heal people and assure of them of the Gospel truth.
So, there is nothing inherent to God providing miraculous evidence, even in the form of a physical artefact, for the truth of Christianity that entails a loss of freedom on our part or thereby diminishes or even inhibits our eternally committed relationship with God. When prevented with miraculous evidence, people still have a choice to commit to Jesus and put their faith in Him or not (as proven by the Pharisees), they still have the ability to choose otherwise.
But even if you were correct that absolute miraculous proof somehow causes compulsion in religion, then as you yourself said in another Blog I did a video response to, God also game erroneous C-14 dates as part of the miracle to provide skeptics an easy “out”, a way to dismiss the evidence and hold onto skeptical unbelief. Thus, even if I were to grant your premise here (which I don’t), the Shroud evidence in particular would not entail a coercionary faith in Christ!
Whoa! A Clarification on Divine Hiddenness is definitely in order before any further conversation: the concept of divine hiddenness has a long and rich history within Christianity, and it is not the same as the argument from divine hiddenness advanced by J.L. Schellenberg and other atheists. Yes, Schellenberg’s argument does challenge theism by asserting that a perfectly loving God would ensure that all “nonresistant nonbelievers” are aware of His existence. I’m familiar with the structure and implications of that argument. But that’s not what I’m referencing when I speak of divine hiddenness. I’m surprised you didn’t see that.
Rather, I’m drawing on the much older and deeper theological tradition—across Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox thought—that sees God’s hiddenness not as a denial of God’s love, but as an expression of it. God hides, not because He is absent, but because He respects our freedom, desires relationship over coercion, and meets us in mystery and suffering. Let me give a few brief examples in case you didn’t encounter them in your readings in philosophy:
Blaise Pascal > “There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.” (Pensées)
Pascal believed that God reveals just enough for those who seek, while also allowing for ambiguity that preserves human freedom. Hiddenness protects the integrity of belief as a free response.
Martin Luther > Luther famously distinguished between the Deus revelatus (revealed God) and the Deus absconditus (hidden God). He saw God most fully revealed in the paradox of the Cross—where God hides in weakness:
“He who does not know God hidden in suffering does not know God at all.”
Mother Teresa > For decades, she experienced what she described as spiritual darkness—the sense of God’s absence. In her private letters, she wrote:
“The silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear… The longing for God is terribly painful and yet the darkness is becoming greater.”
Her love for God endured despite this silence, showing that faith can persist precisely when God seems hidden.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer > Bonhoeffer’s theology from prison emphasized God’s solidarity with human suffering and God’s “silence” in the face of evil—not as absence, but as presence in disguise:
“Only the suffering God can help.”
Rowan Williams > The former Archbishop of Canterbury has written deeply on the apophatic tradition—the idea that God transcends our categories:
“God is not an object among objects; God is not simply one more person in the room. To encounter God is to have one’s whole framework of understanding shaken.”
John Polkinghorne > As both physicist and Anglican priest, Polkinghorne argued that God works subtly, in ways that preserve our freedom:
“God is not a magician… not a celestial showman who puts on a circus act to compel belief.”
On the Term “Godless” Finally, I want to express my discomfort with the use of the term “godless” to describe people who raise philosophical objections or questions about divine action. In my tradition (Anglican), we see every person as bearing the image of God, whether or not they believe, or yet believe—or ever come to believe. It is not our role to separate the wheat from the chaff. That work belongs to God. Our task is to walk humbly, speak truthfully, and show love to all who seek meaning, even if their path looks very different from ours.
I don’t expect we’ll agree on everything. But I think it’s worth distinguishing faithful wrestling with divine mystery from the denial of God, and ancient theology from modern philosophical arguments. That distinction matters.
AND NOW! I don’t dispute that God can and does provide evidence. Nor do I deny that miracles, testimonies, or even artifacts like the Shroud can be part of the Christian story. My concern is not with the existence of evidence, but with its nature and function in a relationship of faith. The kind of love the New Testament seems to center—agape—is not transactional or coercive. It’s invitational. It allows for freedom, ambiguity, and the possibility of misunderstanding.
Yes, Jesus performed miracles. But the resurrection—unlike feeding crowds or healing the sick—was not staged for mass consumption. It happened without spectacle. Even Paul says the risen Jesus appeared to many, but not to all. This isn’t a flaw in the narrative—it’s a feature. God doesn’t seem interested in overwhelming the senses or removing all doubt. The divine stays veiled, even in triumph.
That’s the heart of my point. If the resurrection itself was revealed in quiet ways—through private encounters, meals, and moments of recognition—then I wonder what we are really asking of God when we hope that lab tests on linen will do what empty tombs and broken bread did not.
I’m not saying physical evidence is inherently coercive. But I am saying that theologically, God seems to act in ways that preserve human freedom—not just of action, but of interpretation. There’s a kind of mercy in this restraint.
Thanks for your comment and for the chance at dialogue.
Warm regards,
Dan
REPOST- Without links as my original didn’t post up here.
Hi Dan,
I wasn’t planning on having a back and forth dialogue on my end due to time constraints on my end, but I’m happy to accommodate you provided it doesn’t entail a never-ending back and forth as typically happens on discussion boards. How about we try to focus the convo to 3 back and forths max (one response from me every 2-3 days or less), this way it will force us to hunker down and really try to make our responses count without any fear of an endless convo where we just speak past each other.
Preliminaries:
I’m well aware of J.L. Schellenberg’s version of the argument from divine hiddenness for Atheism, I wrote a paper on his argument in my Grad Seminar and he is actually a friend of a friend of mine as a fellow Canadian philosopher. So for what it is worth, I never intended to imply you were making the same argument as he was for Atheism, instead I was simply saying that you made similar errors such as being too presumptuous with respect to divine psychology. From the nature of my counters, I think it is fairly obvious that I wasn’t responding to you as though I thought you were arguing for Atheism.
Next, in terms of my use of the word “godless”, I’m afraid you have made the mistake of reading in a whole bunch of implications from it then we in my head at the time I used it. I merely used it as a description of many Atheist (who are indeed godless) such as J.L. Schellenberg who I think have made similar errors to yourself with respect to divine psychology.
There was no judgement attached to my use of this term other than my evaluation of that similarity as I see it. That said, you are simply mistaken if you think Christians are not to judge the wheat from the chaff as we are in fact commanded to do so, such judgements are the very basis of church discipline for example. Yes, I think that the final judgement on a person’s salvation vs. damnation is up to God as the perfect judge and we ought not be judgmental against godless sinners as though we are morally superior; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in one way or another, but that doesn’t preclude us from making judgements about a person’s status for edifying purposes esp. when God has revealed his standards to us. To lie to an Atheist and tell him he is just on a “different path” in right standing with God is the most unloving thing you could do- this is a fellow image bearer of God, you owe it to them to tell them the brutal truth of their eternal fate in Hell unless they repent and change to meet God’s Biblically prescribed requirements for salvation!
Rather than go further on the other meta aspects of your response, I’ll just mention you can find my own Blog page and find my previous scholarly work on the Divine Hiddenness argument.
MAIN ARGUMENTS (starting from “AND NOW…”):
You make several clarifications of your intended points in your Blog, I will take you at your word but first just note that I think you could have been a little clearer in the original Blog as you made several “absolute” statements that didn’t show any nuance with respect to evidence like the Shroud. That said, to progress the convo forward, I will ignore the original posting and continue just going with the most charitable understanding of your most recent post to me as your true intended argument/s.
YOU SAY: “I don’t dispute that God can and does provide evidence. Nor do I deny that miracles, testimonies, or even artifacts like the Shroud can be part of the Christian story.”
MY REPLY: Great, that was essentially the main point that I wanted to get across as your original Blog post made it seemed like you denied this.
YOU SAY: “My concern is not with the existence of evidence, but with its nature and function in a relationship of faith. The kind of love the New Testament seems to center—agape—is not transactional or coercive. It’s invitational. It allows for freedom, ambiguity, and the possibility of misunderstanding.”
MY REPLY: OK yes I understand that you don’t think evidence inherently takes away people’s freedom, but you do seem to be saying it does so with respect to a relationship of faith here- you do think that evidence is inherently (by nature and function according to you) contradictory to a “relationship of faith”. This, so far at least, seems to be a false dichotomy since having evidence and a Biblically consistent relationship of faith are not mutually exclusive in any provable way; one can and must have both/and. Our faith in God is an evidence-based trust not a blind faith. Every example of a relationship of faith in the NT is based on evidence of one sort or another and rather than hindering it, it provides the very foundation/basis for it.
You hint that one’s choosing to place their faith in Jesus based on evidence such as the Shroud (at least) is somehow contradictory with agape love. Now, the essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love; it involves faithfulness, commitment, and an act of the will. It is distinguished from the other types of love by its lofty moral nature and strong character. Agape love is beautifully described in 1 Corinthians 13 to entail the following aspects in verses 4-8;
“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8Love never ends.”
The only possible attribute in this list that can even remotely relate to the various aspects you highlight is that agape love “does not insist on its own way”; the Koine Greek phrase literally means “does not seek the things of itself.” Self-focus among human beings is the antithesis of agape love (it marked the sinfulness of the Corinthian church for example), but the Bible makes it clear that the corrective to self-seeking (among humans) is God-seeking. This doesn’t entails that God is selfish or self-seeking here, no He imposes His ways on humans beings out of love for them because He knows what is right and good for them and hence by seeking and loving God and His ways first, we in turn, do and love what is right for ourselves and everyone else. In other words we care about the well being of others (including God) and not just ourselves alone.
None of this implies a contradiction or problem with having evidence, the two things are totally compatible with each other. Nothing here entails a lack of freedom or the need for a possibility for misunderstanding and ambiguity. One can love in the agape sense and have full evidential clarity just as God does via the evidence of properly basic beliefs (and/or otherwise) on His part. The Bible says God had agape love and was the source of it and yet he didn’t have any misunderstandings or ambiguity at all!
So I’m sorry this false dichotomy you set up between having agape love on the one hand and evidence for one’s faith on the other just doesn’t work since there is literally nothing about one having the evidence from the Shroud that logically entails or even make it more likely to be true that a Christian who bases their faith on such evidence must be transactional or coercive or anything else you mention here. You’ve constructed a total non-sequitur here.
YOU SAY: “Yes, Jesus performed miracles. But the resurrection—unlike feeding crowds or healing the sick—was not staged for mass consumption. It happened without spectacle. Even Paul says the risen Jesus appeared to many, but not to all. This isn’t a flaw in the narrative—it’s a feature. God doesn’t seem interested in overwhelming the senses or removing all doubt. The divine stays veiled, even in triumph.”
MY REPLY: This is the problem, you are reading into the text, principles that simply aren’t explicitly mentioned and/or implied by the descriptive narratives themselves; you are committing Biblical eisegesis here based on an entirely arbitrary distinction that you deem relevant but which virtually no one else does!
Look you admit that Jesus performed miracles as evidence to unbelievers to put their faith in Him and you don’t think this hinders them from having agape love or a “relationship in faith” in any way- great. But here is the thing, did Jesus appear to “all”, did the Romans living in Rome see these miracles? Did the native Americans see these miracles? No! So Jesus didn’t do these miracles in front of “all” then!
OK that must be significant for some reason, why wouldn’t Jesus perform miracles for everyone on Earth… Hmm OK let’s do what Dan does and insert an invented principle here, obviously Jesus didn’t do miracles in front of ALL these people because they aren’t fit for the Gospel at all, clearly, this was Jesus sending us the message that only Jews will be saved, right? Wrong as such clearly contradicts Scripture! Unfortunately, you are reasoning them same way here, you are taking a descriptive fact that Jesus didn’t appear to certain types of people after His Resurrection and inserting an invented principle into the text as an explanation as to why. But the text no where says that Jesus only appeared to a select group of followers “without spectacle” because He didn’t want to overwhelm their senses or remove all doubt- you made that up! What if Jesus appeared to certain people for another reason entirely, how do you know your interpretation is true in this case?
I’m sorry but your view is contradictory on this front. Jesus has no issue overwhelming their senses and removing all doubt with his other miracles, so according to your logic, you must say that Jesus wasn’t agape loving when He performed these miracles, right? Why wasn’t Jesus insisting on His own way when He gave absolute proof of the divine before their eyes with a miracle healing or an exorcism, but appearing to them after death, that was crossing the line in your books?
Furthermore, God did indeed provide absolute proof/evidence for the truth of Jesus’ Resurrection with spectacle all the time such as the Day of Pentecost- the Holy Spirit provided thousands of people publicly with testimonial evidence through His own self-authenticating inner witness of Jesus’ death and Resurrection from the dead in Acts 2. The evidence was overwhelming for them who witnessed this under your logic- isn’t that unloving then?
Finally, aside from your misunderstanding about Jesus’ triumph being at His 2nd coming and not with His Resurrection, I provided Biblical proof via examples of Jesus overwhelming the senses with miracles which in turn, did not remove all doubt on an interpretational level. The Pharisees dismissed his powers as supernatural feats of Satan and the same can and actually is done with the Shroud evidence today. So, you’ve failed to even prove that there is this trade-off between proving miraculous evidence such as the Shroud and the removing of all doubt, loss of freedom, etc. which make God coercive in relationship to faith.
YOU SAY: “That’s the heart of my point. If the resurrection itself was revealed in quiet ways—through private encounters, meals, and moments of recognition—then I wonder what we are really asking of God when we hope that lab tests on linen will do what empty tombs and broken bread did not.”
MY REPLY: Again, no it wasn’t but in charity, it just seems we differ on what is private vs. public here, but again proof for the Resurrection of Jesus was not confined only to the Appearances and that is a huge mistake you make- these only established the leaders of the church who were authoritative for passing on the publicly provided testimony as proof for the Resurrection and this testimony was miraculously authenticated publicly in front of all peoples (believer and unbeliever alike) throughout the early church period such as on the Day of Pentecost or look at Peter or Paul performing miracles authenticating their message about Jesus rising from the dead in Acts.
Again, the only thing you have to make your point is that well Jesus didn’t give all these people Resurrection appearances as evidence and instead He gave them other evidence to base their faith on, but I don’t see any reason this distinction is valid at all in terms of somehow interfering with a relationship of faith on anyone’s part and certainly nothing here prevents the Shroud being used as evidence for this event either. Why was Peter allowed to publicly raise Tabitha from the dead as proof that Jesus was the Messiah that died and rose from the dead, but God giving Shroud evidence proving the same will somehow make true faith in Jesus impossible- it’s absurd!
YOU SAY: “I’m not saying physical evidence is inherently coercive. But I am saying that theologically, God seems to act in ways that preserve human freedom—not just of action, but of interpretation. There’s a kind of mercy in this restraint.”
MY REPLY: Yes I agree with this, but there is no sound reason, Biblically speaking, to infer that God’s providing empirical Shroud evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, is harmful to people’s freedom or faith, etc.— in fact providing miraculous signs as proof for the truth of Christianity is His MO in the New Testament.
Thanks and hope this is helpful Dan.
The shroud sends the wrong message that it is what you are to believe rather than are to be.
I love this—thank you. With your permission, may I adjust the wording slightly for clarity?
“If we’re not careful, the Shroud risks sending the wrong message: that what matters most is what you believe, rather than who you are before God.”
I sent a long reply to you above and it isn’t popping up for some reason. But for the record, I actually agree with your more nuanced saying- having the right propositional beliefs are just as important as “who you are before God” as without the proper beliefs, one won’t know who they ought to be before God in the first place.
No it doesn’t Ashlee, please show me the label on the Shroud that explicitly says; “Made by God so that Pro-Shroud Christians will know that all that matters is what you believe, not what you are to be”.
Show me this label or else I will just claim you are imposing your own made up ideas onto the Shroud. The Shroud authenticates certain propositional beliefs to be sure, but also reinforces all of God’s revelation in the Bible which includes teachings on “what you are to be”.
Hi rsm. Playing the label game heehee. The shroud authenticates propositional beliefs you say. Who says they are propositional. And what does that mean anyways. Who says it is authentic. It is like coke zero the label on the shroud says zero evidence.
Hi, Ashlee,
I’d say that the “label” on the Shroud holds a lot of evidence if we think of a “label” as the markings on a cloth that identify its maker. The markings on the cloth are clearly depicting a bloodied, crucified man that has bloodstains around the head that make sense only in the context of a crown of thorns. There’s only one man that history knows of that has had a crown of thorns and been crucified, and that’s Jesus. So, I’d say that is a lot of evidence as to whose burial cloth this was. (Burial cloth based on the the nature of the blood spatter evidence on the side-wound and evidence of rigor mortis and cadaveric spasm in the body image. Who else could it be other than Jesus?
Best regards,
Teddi
Yep, it’s my favorite game to play esp. when there are no labels to be found, you can just make up whatever you want just like you did when you said the Shroud tells you “that it is what you believe rather than what we are to be”- you are right my friend, there is zero evidence for that conclusion of yours haha :P
But yeah on a more serious note, propositions just represent the ideas behind a given statement or statements. My name is Dale is the same proposition as Je m’appelle Dale- two different statements, but the same idea/proposition behind them that the statements are expressing.
As to your questions, who says they are propositional- everyone, including you just now. Even if the evidence from the Shroud says it is a medieval fake, that still entails the formation of propositional beliefs based on it. So, I’m not sure the Shroud says zero evidence, as at the very least its very existence entails the truth of propositional beliefs such as the Shroud of Turin exists, resides in Turin, Italy, etc.- so when you say there is no evidence on the Shroud, I simply ask, really? For what propositions do you claim there is zero evidence?
Heck, even if the Shroud is a fake, given the attached religious context, it can clearly present us with propositional beliefs of the sort you’re after in terms of what we are to be, it depicts Jesus sacrificing Himself out of love for us and undergoing horrific torture and death all just to save us- wretched sinners that we are! Sounds like the Shroud Man provides with a moral exemplar for us to emulate as per Virtue ethics to me
Finally, in the case of the Shroud’s authenticity and your question on that front, I say it is authentic and that should be enough for any and all on here- sorry if you’ve been living in ignorance of my authoritative opinion on that matter until now, there is only so much time in a day, but now you know, I have imparted my wisdom to ya- never forget, what Dale/RSM says goes don’t ya know! :)
Just for clarification, I’m not saying that Jesus made the fabric that comprises the cloth but the “design” on the cloth that makes the cloth identifiable—which are, of course, the images and bloodstains on the cloth (almost all of which are transfers of blood clot exudates, not painted on or smeared or dribbled on blood.
Oh, BTW, there is Fanti’s response to Hugh’s claim on his blog (the post: “How was it done”: https://medievalshroud.com/how-was-it-done/ ).
Giulio Fanti and Carol Gregorek: “Turin Shroud: Example of Claims against its Authenticity and Comments”: https://urfjournals.org/open-access/turin-shroud-example-of-claims-against-its-authenticity-and-comments.pdf
I post it here because Dan closed comments in relevant post.
I also did a Shroud Wars Panel Review Part 16D reading that response on my Real Seekers Podcast as well.
After reading all these many meanderings, both the original post and the 26 comments so far, all eloquent and highly speculative, with violin accompaniment throughout (drums too, sometimes), all I can say is this: Thank goodness I am no longer a Christian, nor any other religious believer. And good luck to you all. You will need it.
John L.
The people most in need of “luck” are those who have the blind, unsubstantiated and bold faith that there is nothing beyond a body’s earthly death. It’s like a game of “peek-a-boo” with a baby–where they cannot fathom that someone can be present if they cannot see them. Obviously, this is not necessarily true, but it takes a certain amount of maturity and sophisticated thinking to realize this, and there are people of all ages who lack this.
Additionally, to be a Christian is to know that one day we will stand before God and be judged for all of our actions. God will determine if even the believers are “sheep” or “goats.” That’s a frightening idea, and God warns us, repeatedly, that we are to fear Him who has control over whether we go to Heaven or Hell. It takes mental courage to understand this and accept this as reality. For many, however, this is so overwhelming that, instead of trying to rise to the occasion, they just try to pacify themselves with the incessant affirmation that they make to themselves that God does not exist so they don’t need to worry about anything. That’s a ticking time-bomb right there. And, everything’s well and good–until the bomb goes off.
John, I appreciate your honesty—and I believe God does too. While I personally affirm what is best summarized in the Nicene Creed, I don’t believe God judges us based on what we believe or don’t believe, or by what religion we do or don’t belong to. I trust in a God who loves and welcomes everyone—no exceptions.
I understand that many will see this differently, and I simply ask for restraint. This blog isn’t meant to be a forum for debating or proclaiming the many interpretations of Christianity or religion in general. It’s about the Shroud.
One of my favorite quotations on the Shroud is by the late John A. T. Robinson, an Anglican bishop and the author of “Honest to God.” He wrote in 1977:
“If in the recognition of the face and hands and feet and all the other wounds (on the Holy Shroud), we, like those who knew Him best, are led to say, “It is the Lord!”, then perhaps we may have to learn to count ourselves also among those who have “seen and believed.” But that, as St. John makes clear, brings with it no special blessing (20:29)–rather special responsibility (17:l8-21)”
Hi, Dan,
Yes, at last, a point of profound agreement that I have with you: there is, indeed, a responsibility that attaches to someone when they really understand WHAT the Holy Shroud is. To really understand it is, indeed, to “see and believe,” and from there springs forth “The Great Commission” regarding It. Because, God’s gift of it enables all who can learn about It to, also, “see and believe.”
But, as I mentioned before, this should only be the beginning of how the Holy Shroud should impact one’s life, not the end.
Best regards,
Teddi
Just a quick question for you Dan and then I won’t respond after your answer since it is not Shroud related. I’m just curious, you seem to advocate for the Christian Universalism position. Do you hold this position because you think that such a position is Biblically consistent to your mind or do you just not care what Scripture says as you deny Biblical inspiration/inerrancy on such issues?
I’m just interested to know where you are coming from on this front?
Hey seekerman did you just write do you just not care what scripture says as you deny biblical inspiration/inerrancy on such issues. I know you addressed this to Dan and I dont know how he feels but for some who are universalists like me we are about half of all christianity I am insulted. I do care. Get real.
Hi John,
I’m not sure who all this comment was aimed at, but based on Dan’s response to you, it may be that, in part, you were aiming this semi-condescending post to me based on my take about the “godless” being damned to Hell.
For what it is worth, I didn’t have you in mind specifically as an Agnostic, but that said, the truth is that the Bible clearly teaches that those who don’t believe in God will go to Hell- that is my informed opinion based on studying the Biblical scholarship. I take a Quarantine model of Hell as per Gary Habermas and JP Morland- I’d explain more but Dan asks below that we only post about Shroud stuff going forward, so I will refrain here, but feel free to email me if you want me to send you a link to get more info on the Hell doctrine.
All, I will say is that my views are not speculative, but well evidenced and informed Biblical interpretations supported by the top scholarship in the world. I understand, that as an Agnostic, you may feel offended to be counted among those going to Hell- it is not a pleasant or nice thought at all as even God hates the very notion of people choosing damnation over salvation.
But from a Biblical perspective, it is true nonetheless and must be honestly and bluntly spoken to warn people like yourself. Dan seems to be a very liberal Christian who either doesn’t take Scripture seriously and/or has somehow misinterpreted what the text says as teaching some kind of Universalism position (a position that all of us would agree is desirable as God Himself desires that no one should perish in an ideal world if only everyone would freely choose salvation).
Anyways, I will just say that there is no need to be offended, the Quran says that if Islam is true, then me, you and Dan will all be damned to Hell- and they believe in the traditional immoral torture chamber model of Hell where our skin will be burned off only to grown back every day to be burned off again- I hate this thought, it offends me to think that Allah would send me to such a place. But at the end of the day, if Islam is true and the Quran is inspired by Allah, then I’m grateful to Muslims who love me enough to warn me and try to persuade me of this truth as they see it. It is most kind and loving thing they can do for me (from their perspective).
That is what I’m doing for you and other godless Atheists and Agnostics when I tell them they are going to Hell. Instead of getting offended or belittling those who love you enough to tell you the truth, you should instead ask yourself whether what we say is true or not on the basis of the evidence. I think you’ll find the evidence for truth and existence of the Biblical Christian God is overwhelming!
Anyways, I’ve said my piece on this- as Dan recommends I will refrain going further on this issue and just focus on Shroud stuff.
Ashlee, it seems I cannot respond to you. But my question was for Dan and was a sincere one, I even said I wouldn’t respond back as I wasn’t trying to argue but understand why Dan (and now you), claim to be Christians and yet affirm a false position like Universalism.
The fact that you are insulted by a question shows you are the problem here, not me; it is clear either Dan cares what the Bible says on this front and he thinks the Bible teaches Universalism (in which case I’d say he misunderstands it, but that doesn’t matter to my question) OR he knows the Bible argues against Universalism but doesn’t care because he doesn’t think the Bible is inspired and/or inerrant in terms of its teachings on eternal damnation.
There is nothing insulting or offensive in asking someone a question like this, do you know how many people who claim to be Christians have told me they don’t care about what Scriptures say because they think it has errors in it????
On behalf of such people, I’m insulted that you are insulted! You need to grow up and stop lecturing good Christians like myself who simply ask people questions instead of making hasty false assumptions about others like you just did against me- Jesus is ashamed at you right now for how you treated me- shame on you Ashlee. You tell me to “get real”, I advise you to “get the Holy Spirit”.