« Putting All Our Eggs in One Basket: Cloning Project Manipulates Women |
Main
| What shall we do with Halloween? »
Faith and Doubt
It seems that a lot of what passes for contemporary middle-of-the-road evangelical Christianity in the States tends to dismiss doubt as out of hand -- that it doesn't really matter. Or, if someone has nagging doubts about their faith, it simply indicates that person's faith is "weak", that they can "get past" the idea that lurking in the back of one's head that maybe this Christianity is just a hoax, an emotional crutch.
Problem is, most of these people haven't really dealt with large questions -- haven't been shaken up past the point of mediocrity. We have been seduced by SUVs, middle class incomes, and making sure we run with the "secular" crowd, so that we don't lose step in the materialism gain. We've sought prestige, renown and higher incomes. We have not experienced suffering, so we do not care about answering it. We often don't think beyond our day-to-day lives about not only the impact our daily choices has on the world around us or on how our faith is reflected in our daily practices but also have not interrogated larger issues: What is meaning? Does the Bible have the ultimate say in matters of truth, authority and application of faith to life? What happens when people turn away from the gospel -- does it really have the power to save?
We've become so cozy in our lifestyle choices and this in turn, reflects our intellectual apathy. We repeat cliches, thinking they're truth. We water down the gospel so that it's palatable for the "seekers". We say we have "no creed but Christ" without looking for the implications of Christ's teaching and the way in which that informs our every action and our worldview. We use pat answers so that we needn't ask questions, needn't wrestle with the hard truths of the Christian faith, needn't think that doubt has an important role to play in our faith.
For when seeking to respect the whole personhood of those unsaved around us, we must ask their questions as well. We must understand that doubt -- not only asking the questions, but looking for answers, and for the Christian, praying through our doubt -- helps to root our foundation in the Christ of Scripture, rather than making an idol to be worshipped out of a pathetically nice, flanograph version of Jesus.
[These thoughts have been most recently stirred up by Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth, Kevin Vanhoozer's Is there a meaning in this text? and Ronald Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger]
As someone who has a tendency to question too much . . . thanks for the reminder that sometimes questions can be good. Balance can be very elusive! :-)
Nice to read this. Often I feel like I'm the only Christian who ever has doubts and big questions about my own beliefs, but I've learned from experience not to admit that to anyone--much less other Christians.
Wow, thank you for this. Preach it, sister.
I was taught that doubt is not sin, it is the need to understand. Hence, it is not doubt that is at issue, rather ignoring doubt that can cause our faith to falter - sweeping doubt under the rug, pretending it's not there, not pursuing answers to those questions through prayer, study and fellowship. Through seeking the truth that satisfies the doubt, faith is strengthened.
Unattended doubt, however, can fester and grow, leading to disbelief which leads to all manner of trouble.
Though I am now past the basic issues, I still have periodic 'wrestling matches' with God over all sorts of things. Doubting and questioning reminds me of Jacob wrestling with God. When we are finished, like Jacob, we will come away changed. God must not mind this type of encounter and interaction--afterall, He chose to name His people 'Israel', 'wrestles with God'.
Doubt attends me from time to time. It most often comes my way via "the social construction of reality." Social constructionism is an occupational hazard for the Christian sociologist. Much (most?) of our lives IS socially constructed. My secular colleagues would simply say, "ALL is socially constructed."
I cling, in faith, to the beliefs that there is a God, Jesus is the Son, that God is Three in One, that we were made good, that we are fallen, and that Jesus came to redeem/call a people to Himself to live as subjects of the Kingdom.
But my sociology colleagues smile and wonder why I have this undigested leftover from metaphysical silliness (that's redundant). It's all socially constructed, including, maybe even especially, one's religion.
But when I think of the theories and empirical findings of sociologists, I know that if Christians followed Jesus as subjects follow a King, we'd have some great lived arguments for how Christianity defies the typical theories of social life. Turning the other cheek, resisting temptation to lust, loving enemies, giving away treasure, seeking the lower place, loving images of God not because of achievement but because they're images of God-- these would confound social constructionists. This would cause THEM to doubt.
But who lives this way? I look at my life and those around me and I basically wonder if the social constructivists have it right. If this stuff we're true, or if we even believed it were true, we'd live differently. But I/we live as though the Scriptures are not inerrant, but culture is. Culture hands us the scripts that we live by, and we dare not fail to keep the scripts. We WILL take our cues from the world. Culture WILL define reality for us. And Jesus will be fitted into the cracks of our schedules, but He and His kingdom will not originate or define our lives.
Glenn, we are, indeed, such wretched, pathetic sinners. But He is more powerful than our weakness and doubts. From the cracks He will work as mortar to hold our lives together. Or for the things in our lives that are worthless and wrong, Jesus will act like the chisel fitted into the crack to bust our lives wide open. Either way, Jesus worked into the cracks is where He has to start with most of us--but even a crack is enough for Him to begin His work in us.
Debra, if you're right that "even a crack is enough for Him to begin His work in us," how come He does so little? This is precisely why I have doubt at times, why I wonder if the social constructivists are right. We say He is more powerful, that He will act as a chisel, etc., and certainly we believe He cares far more than we do about turning the other cheek, loving our enemies, etc.
So....why so little? Why do "committed" evangelicals, "strong Christians" that we know, including ourselves, reject sometimes plain teachings of Jesus in order to live by the scripts of the world? Doesn't it seem odd to you that if Jesus were so intent on forming a people that we are so very formed by the world and so little formed by Scripture?
Again, why so little fidelity to the King? On our side of the equation the answer is, of course, sin. On His side of the equation we don't really know for sure why He hasn't changed us more thoroughly, but we have some warrant for believing that He's really, really patient. Most days, this is enough for me dismiss the doubts and get on with life but other days...I doubt.
Coincidentally, just this morning, I was just reading this passage:
"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Peter 3:8-9
I know it can be discouraging, at times. Believe me, I wrestle with the same thing. But, I think He is doing a whole lot more in the world, and in our lives, than we sometimes have the eyes to see.
I think a whole lot of the reason for our doubts (mine included, or rather, especially) is that we don't understand and don't really believe the gospel. We fail to grasp how good the good news is and we fail to "work out our salvation" so that we not only say and believe the gospel but live it as well.
Glenn, I think it is easier to live by the "scripts of the world" because it's what we want at bottom often. When our world is so pervaded by "tolerance" and relativism, taking a view of Truth is intellectual suicide in some circles, not to mention just unfashionable in most places. It's easy to let the dominant viewpoint around us shape us in very subtle ways, from our purchasing choices to what academic theories we find satisfying. For me, remembering to root myself in the Word and reading some formative books (like the ones mentioned in the post) help remind me of the gospel and its radical message that requires me to live radically (although I, of course, don't usually meet the 'radical' challenge).
Glenn, you ask some really good questions and make a very good observation about social constructivism -- I addressed this from a different angle in my "iconoclasm" posts earlier.
I have seen enough change in my own life, though, as a result of obedience and taking God at His word, that I know that, even if some of it was effected via some sort of social or cultural influence, the original influence came via the Holy Spirit.
There are many examples of people who have lived with true faith who would confound your colleagues -- Corrie Ten Boom comes to mind immediately, as does Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Jim Eliot is another. Then there is the 60-ish-year-old man found in New Orleans post-Katrina after many many days in his home with no food, who was sane and at peace when he was found -- he was also a man of faith. There is the mother whose daughter was murdered while camping who, in a television interview, confounded Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer with her forgiveness of the murderer.
I concur with Debra that God is doing His work, in His time, since He is sovereign, yet I also think it's true that we are a relatively faithless people and therefore do not walk in faith as we ought. Yet I personally find strength in Biblical examples of faithful people and what I learn of God's character, and am encouraged by real-life saints, past and present.
Glenn (or Bonnie), is social constructivism the sort of thing that would identify a Christian who claims ultimate authority in Scripture as someone who has merely been trained to "brainwash" him/herself in a certain arbitrarily selected worldview? I've been wondering about how we would refute that charge - maybe by pointing out that brainwashing ourselves in one way or another is inevitable, and when we do so in a sense when we run to the Bible for relief from doubts we find truth and not false assurance.
Laura, the Anti-Nietzsche--
Social constructivists (or constructionists) believe that reality is socially constructed. A complete constructionist account is naturalistic- there is no such thing as 'super' natural. That's why metaphysics is silliness to someone who things all is constructed. The notion of getting behind reality to a real reality is non-sensical.
There's not space to summarize Weber or Durhkeim on the origins of religion, less so Marx and the sociology of knowledge tradition. Suffice to say: we know things in community. As Berger wrote, we know things in "plausibility structures."
Interesting thing about Berger. While he and Luckmann wrote "The Social Construction of Reality", and Berger followed that up by applying SCR to religion in "The Sacred Canopy," Berger came back and wrote A Rumor of Angels. In Rumor Berger says, "Not EVERYthing is socially constructed. We have these signals of transcendence from beyond." Berger is a Lutheran. :)
Anti-Nietzsche, I'm not sure of the answer to your first question, but my refutation would go even further than what you say; the difference being found not in running to a thing for relief, but to God Himself -- our Father in heaven. Not to a worldview or a set of codes but to a Person Who loves us and teaches us the Truth, and in Whom we can rest and trust.
Ashley, Bonnie
I'm heartened that you see things this way. My preoccupation of late has been why "normal" is our enemy. Because we live by the "scripts of the world", fitting in, being normal, becomes the sine qua non.
Ashley, you use a word that I think is one part of the preoccupation for me. "Unfashionable." I know you didn't use it the way I'm about to, but your use of it is a helpful bridge to what follows.
In a consumer society "normal" and "fashionable" are related. Increasingly I find myself wondering what Jesus thought of fashion when he walked the earth, and what He thinks about it in our society.
Specifically, I wonder if Jesus cares about clothes being "so 80s" or "so 90s" or "so last season". Think about those phrases and how we use them. On the surface those phrases about fashion are descriptive, but how often are they carriers of normative content? We exclude and include based on normative judgments of peoples' clothes. And I wonder if Jesus would include or exclude because of someone's attire.
Maybe He would. But I have a hard time believing that Jesus would cringe, smirk, frown or engage in any other form of judgment because a woman's suit came from Kmart instead of Ann Taylor, or a man's suit from Sears instead of Brooks Brothers.
If we think Jesus wouldn't exclude someone because his/her clothes are from Kmart, why do we?
I've pressed the argument before, and talk about making some Christians threatened and angry. Why? Because, de facto, culture is inerrant. We know the scripts of the world, we know how score is kept, and we must be normal, we must fit in.
Contra 1 John 2:15-16 we love the world. We LOVE it.
Glenn, some people's natural instinct (like mine)is to run contrary to what most of the culture is doing. But that, in and of itself, doesn't make me holier or better. I am still reacting to the World. I don't think the desire for conformance to social constructs is, ultimately, the problem.
Anti-Nietzshe, if a scientist is asked why he believes what he believes, he will not reply 'because that is what is in the science text.' He believes what he believes because it is verifiable truth. The text may be where he first learned scientific truths but it is not ultimately why he believes them to be true. He believes, partly, because he has performed some of the experiments and validated the truths in the text, partly because the truths in the text validate and explain his experiences and obervations and lastly, because he trusts the authority of the author of the text for those things he has not 'proved'. This last reason is the most important. For ultimately, almost all of our knowledge, whether physical or metaphysical, is based on trust of the source of the knowledge. We can 'prove' very little of what we know. Ultimately, the faith and trust that come from our encounter with God through his Holy Spirit is why Christians believe. But you can tell others to start with 'the text' and see if what is written doesn't prove, over and over, to be an accurate explanation and description of Reality.
Debra,
If you will expand upon your last comment (regarding what is ultimately the problem), I'm interested in hearing your perspective.
It seems to me that conforming to the patterns of this world (social constructs) is a serious problem in light of Romans 12:2. And when we have imperatives not to love the world, our conforming to social constructs again seems a serious problem.
Glenn you bring up some good points at the ways in which we are enthralled with the "world"; I think though there is a problem about setting up a false dichotomy between "the world" and "Christians" -- as if the relationship is purely antagonistic. For although we are indeed to be set apart we are also commanded to redeem the culture -- which includes fashion (as a 'for instance', but as you say, not snubbing others according to it), art, the sciences, family life and any number of other things. So it is a tricky balance; we are not to be transformed by the world around us but are supposed to engage the deepest parts of our culture, like Paul does in his sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17.
Thus as you said in your last comment we aren't to conform to the world or to love the world, but this doesn't mean that we have no part in the world, that we do not care for the world and that we don't seek to redeem the world through Christ. Many things are right with our culture -- although of course still tainted, still mere (dark) shadows of God's original plan.
Ashley,
Good point. I think we are helped on this matter by the different connotations of "cosmos" in the NT and in particular John's use of it in 1 John. I believe most of us would affirm that John is not using "cosmos" in 2:15-16 to refer to the created order or all people, two of the common connotations for "cosmos." Though dealing with connotations is a labor in ambiguity, a survey of most (all?) scholars' work on 1 John points to "cosmos" meaning "the system of organized rebellion arrayed against the reign of God." That's my own summary, though more particularly indebted to one scholar whose name escapes me at the moment.
I do think that we want to press that particular dichotomy, between "the system of organized rebellion" and "the reign of God."
But you point, well taken, has me wondering about two things. What follows is me thinking aloud, not asserting or contending. If you'll join in, perhaps you (and others) can help me think more clearly about what follows.
One, is the cosmos, even in the connotation that I subscribe to, this cosmos that we are not to love, is it redeemable? I've not thought of the cosmos-not-to-be-loved in that light before. Part of me thinks, "No, that system of organized rebellion is, by nature, unredeemable." Part of me thinks, "Is anything unredeemable? Why not redeemd the system of organized rebellion?"
So you've made me wonder then about the nature of redemption and its targets. I use the term a lot, but what does it really mean for something to be redeemed? I immediately agree that science, arts, family, etc is to be redeemed. I'm a Kuyperian Reformed person, "every square inch," etc.
But, are there some things that, by their nature, are not to be redeemed? Prostitution, for example. I see how God can redeem a prostitute and I see the oft-repeated comparison of the Church to Gomer/Israel. But is prostitution ITSELF to be redeemed? I see how child molesters are to be redeemed, but molestation itself? Likewise torturers, but not torture.
However, I believe that not just artists but art itself is and will be redeemed. Sewing. Farming. Perhaps we can make a distinction between things that are sinful in themselves (stealing) and things that can be sinful when attached to wrong ends.
Again, I'm thinking aloud in this comment, not asserting, hoping to learn through the discussion. I'm not disagreeing with you, Ashley, but hoping that through discussion I/we can get to greater understanding.
When humans are redeemed, human activity will be redeemed. We don't need to worry about which activities or how they will be redeemed if we focus on and pray for the redemption of the actors. It is not so much what we do that is in need of redemption as who we are.
We are to reject & learn to despise the things, attitudes, etc.. of this world but we know that God so loved the world...so too should we.
The ultimate problem is not that the culture defines who we are--that's merely a symptom. The problem is that, without God, what else do we have to define who we are? The problem is our disconnect from God. As to why it appears so many people who call themselves Christians seem more connected to the world than they do to God--I don't really have an answer--except to say that I know God is working in the world and changing lives. The process is painfully slow and looking at Christians, in general, will probably be discouraging. But find an individual Believer, who truly loves the Lord, and watch, over time, what God is doing to change them and I think you will be more encouraged.
