""/
Apologetics, Christianity, Doubt

Doubt Your Doubts

February 28, 2019

Doubt that doesn’t matter much

Some of our beliefs are mundane and they really don’t matter too much. It’s a big yawn, in these cases, to be corrected. I believe I have a dental appointment coming up on March 18. If my wife turned to me with her calendar in hand, a certain look on her face, and said that my appointment is on April 18, I would shrug my shoulders and believe her. I also believe that if I leave campus after 4pm today, it will add 10 minutes to my drive. I believe that I save money shopping at Costco (please tell me I’m right). Any time I’m asked to consider joining a business venture that resembles a pyramid scheme, I believe it is not worth trying (FYI for all you schemers!!). I believe all these things, but I could give them up without much counter evidence. In consequence, they are minor.

Doubting important beliefs

There are other beliefs in which we find ourselves much more deeply invested. I am, for example, deeply invested in beliefs about my children’s health and well being. I believe that my kids are, on the whole, healthy and well. But something happens to me intellectually when they, as it sometimes happens, come down with some sickness or health issue that is a bit unusual. My mind begins to play out various scenarios about what the future could look like in case this is the beginning of some serious health issue. I sometimes lose sleep. I pray…a lot. And I can begin to seriously doubt that my child is okay.

So far, when this has happened, our kids have thankfully been fine and the doubts were, to some degree, unfounded or at least premature.

Christian doubt

This is similar to the experience of Christians when they doubt. Christianity is not a set of ordinary beliefs. It is a set of deep beliefs about the world, and our purpose and place in it. It involves beliefs about how we should live every moment of our lives. And it also involves a belief about eternal hope.

Sometimes we may encounter a challenge to our Christian beliefs and we worry that we may be wrong. We worry that what we’ve believed in and given our lives to is a big lie. We sometimes think we may have stumbled over the smoking gun of Christianity- the objection that cannot be answered that others have either ignored or missed.

What should we do when we doubt?

I’m convinced that we sometimes allow our doubts to have their way with us too much. That is, we let our imagination run too far in front of the evidence. When I’m worried about my kid’s health, I’m letting my “what ifs” cause me to lose sleep and worry about something that is not yet warranted.

What should I do in these times of struggle? I’m probably always going to have concern for my children. That’s just the deal. But intellectually speaking, I need to be reminded there’s not yet reasons to doubt my beliefs. In other words, I shouldn’t stop believing that they are okay until I have reasons and evidence for this.

[share-quote author=”Travis Dickinson” via=”travdickinson”] Our doubts don’t win by default…We should, in a way, doubt our doubts. [/share-quote]

Likewise, when it comes to our Christian faith, it’s perfectly okay and normal to doubt from time to time. But we shouldn’t let those doubts simply have their way with us. Our doubts don’t win by default. We need to investigate the doubts. We must, in a way, doubt our doubts. We need to hold our doubts up to the fire and determine whether these doubts are genuinely a problem.

The injustices of the church

Here’s an example:

Let’s say someone comes up to you and says Christianity is a terrible view because Christians have done terrible things. Let’s say this hits home for you and you are challenged by it. You certainly do not want to align with a terrible view and you agree that Christians have done terrible things in the past.

But instead of letting this doubt have its way with you, you should doubt the doubt. You should begin to reflect on this challenge and read what others have said on both sides.

For me, what I find helpful on this issue is to realize that any crackpot can call themselves a Christian and do things in the name of Christ that are horrific. And this is true of any and all views. But this doesn’t mean the views are thereby wrong or terrible.

A genuine injustice is only a problem for the Christian view if this injustice is specifically supported by the teaching of the Bible.

One way to get at this is to look to the life of Jesus. He is, by all accounts, the exemplar or model for all Christians. If the injustice is supported by the life of Jesus, then it is a problem. If not, then it’s most likely not. It would just be someone acting unlike Jesus; acting unchristian.

There’s of course a lot more to be said, but I find that this provides a blueprint for resolving this sort of issue. The typical injustices that are cited, it seems to me, are always out of step with Jesus. I think we need to recognize there have been many injustices perpetuated in the name Christ and we ourselves have all probably acted poorly in front of those who know we are Christians. But in these times, we and they act contrary to Christ.

A stronger faith

Now what we’ve done is doubted the doubt and found that it does not defeat our Christian beliefs (or so it seems to me). Other challenges may be more difficult. Some of my doubts along the way have of course caused me to revise my view. But so far, I haven’t found a smoking gun objection that defeats the reasonableness of Christianity.

What I have found is that I come out the other side of this process with an even stronger faith. I’ve not only resolved an intellectual challenge to my beliefs, but I am more confident as a result of it. And that’s a very good thing. My doubts have led me to a stronger faith.

(This article is an updated repost)

""/
Doubt

Furtick, Strachan, and whether Doubt is Sin

July 28, 2018

It went like this. Megachurch pastor, Steven Furtick, preaches a sermon in his typical millennial-hipster-mixed-with-seeker-sensitivity-on-steroids way on the topic of doubt. He even titled his message The Benefit of the Doubt (blushing). In the theatrical sermon he yells a lot and at one point cries out: “someone to my backside back me up on this!” That’s largely irrelevant, but I did find that really funny.

In the theatrics he places value on doubt for the Christian believer. His basic point seemed to be it is okay and natural and even valuable to experience doubts while living the Christian life of faith.

Image result for owen strachan

Owen Strachan, professor at Midwestern Seminary and popular blogger, however, took issue with this. The Christian Post even characterizes Strachan’s piece as a rebuke of Furtick for what Strachan thinks are unbiblical claims about faith and doubt. Strachan says:

Coming to faith in Christ necessarily means that you do not doubt the gospel of grace. Coming to faith in Christ means that you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Jesus presented himself as the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Jesus demands total repentance and total trust in him, and he is right to do so. Jesus rebuked doubting Thomas (John 20:24-29). What specifically did Christ say to Thomas in verse 27? “Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

He goes on to say:

Let me say as this plainly as I know how: there is nothing of doubt in faith. God is not honored by doubt; doubting is not obedience to God. It is disobedience. We all falter in our faith…We are all the father of the child who has a demon in Mark’s Gospel. Every Christian must pray, “Help my unbelief, Lord, and forgive me for it!” (see Mark 9:14-29). But there is a major difference between categorizing doubt as sin and categorizing doubt as in any way neutral, acceptable, allowable, or virtuous.

Now, to be clear, I definitely prefer Strachan’s style, scholarship, and theology. I could never be part of Furtick’s church both for its style and its substance. However, on this one issue, I think Strachan is mistaken about the nature of doubt.

Epistemology and doubt

First, there is more than one sense of the term ‘doubt.’ There is, to be sure, a form of doubt that is sin. I call this toxic doubt. But the most common way we refer to and think about doubt is not in a moral category. It is epistemological. For Strachan to call all doubt sin and disobedience is just not being careful since intellectual doubt is not itself right or wrong, moral or immoral. To think so is a category error.

Intellectual doubt, in my view, is feeling the force of an objection to Christianity. It is to hear someone lay out, say, the problem of evil or to allege a contradictory set of passages in Scripture, etc., and to simply feel the pull of these problems. In short, it is a felt intellectual tension in our beliefs in light of an objection. The point is intellectual doubt is not something under our control and, thus, it makes no sense to say we shouldn’t doubt. We can’t just knock it off. It simply happens to us in our intellectual pursuits. Saying to not doubt is like saying to not find a person attractive. It is what we do with our doubts (and our feelings of attractions) that falls within the moral category.

Strachan uses a few passages to make his case here, but I find their use a bit fast and loose. Strachan summarizes the father in Mark 9:14-29 as saying, “Help my unbelief, Lord, and forgive me for it!” In the passage, the father certainly asks for help with his unbelief, but there is nowhere he is asking forgiveness for his unbelief. In John 20, it is also unclear to me that Jesus specifically rebukes Thomas for his doubts. Again, I don’t think that Thomas had any control over his having doubts. His mistake is he places his threshold of belief unreasonably high. It was only if and when Thomas himself could physically put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus that he would believe. Having intellectual doubts is one thing, but demanding a world of evidence is another.

Doubt as Instrumentally Valuable

Second, doubt has instrumental value and only instrumental value. This is a really important point. There are many things in life that have value even if they do not have value as ends in themselves. Take pushups, for example. Doing pushups has value but not as an end in itself. Those who do pushups (not me so much) do them for a further end, namely, for upper body strength. Pushups have instrumental value since, though not fun and sometimes painful, they lead to this good.

Similarly, doubt is instrumentally valuable since, when handled properly, it can lead to truth, knowledge and, somewhat ironically, an even greater faith. Without using these terms, I think this is what Furtick was saying. He was never extolling doubt as an end itself. He, as far as I could tell, was saying that working through the doubt leads us to these further goods (and went on to talk about “fulfilling our destiny” and that’s where I vomited). My point is that coming across some doubts is valuable when those doubts drive us to dive more deeply into our pursuit of God. They are instrumentally good. We don’t want to stay in the place of doubt. But they help direct us in the ways we need to be more intellectually careful. If hearing the problem of evil creates some intellectual doubts, then I think this is good if it drives us to dive deeply into the very powerful responses we have to the problem. Once we have settled a few of our questions, we somewhat ironically will have a deeper and more abiding faith.

Mere Belief versus Faith

Third, our intellectual beliefs and our faith are not the same thing. It seems clear we can intellectually believe in Christianity without having faith. This describes many people who regularly attend church. They may be in overall good shape intellectually and yet have no saving faith. Indeed, James tells us that even the demons believe (2:19). But I can also have some intellectual tension, questions, and even admitted ignorance in important areas and still fully place my faith in Christ. We do this all the time in our lives. We place our faith in things about which we are somewhat unsure and about which we have questions. We do this when we sit on a chair, get on an airplane, or commit ourselves in marriage to another. We can’t be fully certain about how it will all go, but we can fully entrust ourselves. I think the analogy of marriage is especially relevant since its most like our Christian faith. Our Christian faith is personal. Our beliefs, by contrast, are propositional.

Conclusion: Intellectual doubt is not sinful

I am, at this point, very confident that Christianity is true. I propositionally believe Christianity is true in all of its core claims and a host of more incidental ones. But I have questions about Christianity that I’m still in the process of intellectually working out. I also feel the tension that is caused from certain objections to Christianity. But here’s the point: I’ve given my life to it. I have full and abiding faith in Jesus Christ. I’m going to keep pursuing my intellectual questions with the hope that one day I won’t have those questions and the doubts will all be gone. But I’m not sinning while experiencing some intellectual doubts. I’m not disobeying or doing something necessarily contrary to faith when I process through my questions and tensions. It’s not to be celebrated, but it is also not something about which to say “knock it off.” Somebody to my backside back me up on this!!

""/
Christian Faith, Doubt

The Value of Being Dogmatic in Our Faith

January 30, 2018

For some, I’d be the last guy you’d expect to be extolling the value of dogmatism. On this blog, I typically urge the value of doubt and questioning our faith. I do always try to be careful to say that doubt is not good in itself. It has value, but the value comes when we lean into doubts and are led to truth, knowledge and a more confident faith. And faith certainly is a virtue. So I don’t want anyone to stay in a place of serious doubt. And through the doubt, I want to suggest it’s important to stay somewhat dogmatic about the (important and fundamental) beliefs we have.

Okay, so what do I mean by dogmatism? For our purposes, let’s understand dogmatism as sticking with our convictions in the face of countervailing evidence.

Inappropriate Dogmatism

Now there is no question there are forms of dogmatism that are clearly inappropriate. We should of course follow the evidence where it leads. At some point, the evidence will likely lead all of us to reject some belief we have long held. This can be very, very difficult, especially when we have organized our lives, to some degree, around this belief. This can be a belief in the integrity of some person, organization or institution, or a belief in some political theory, or a theory of science, or even something having to do with sports or a hobby, etc. It can also of course have to do with one’s Christian beliefs. When we remain absolutely stubborn in our beliefs despite unassailable evidence, this is not an intellectual virtue and it’s not what I’m suggesting here.

There is, as usual, another extreme. We can also be unstable in our deeply held beliefs where we fold, so to speak, in the face of any challenge at all. So, as usual, the virtue is somewhere in the middle. The big question is where is that line? To what degree should we be dogmatic?

Virtuous Dogmatism

Well the answer seems to clearly turn on the evidence. We should give up our beliefs when we lack any substantial reasons for believing them to be true. Also we should give up our belief if there is a fatal objection and it cannot be adequately addressed after sustained inquiry. However, this is often not where we are at when we doubt our Christian beliefs. When I was in my strongest periods of doubt, I still had plenty of reasons for maintaining my beliefs. There were just a few things with which I was deeply struggling. But, even in this, there were numerous other lines of evidence for the truth of Christianity that more than justified my Christian faith. So it seems we should be dogmatic about a belief in the face of countervailing evidence when we still have, all things considered, good reason for that belief.

To illustrate, suppose a mom finds out her son is being charged with murder. Things don’t look good for him. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and substantial evidence points to his guilt. His mom, though, has unique perspective. She knows him well and believes for good reason that murder would be completely out of step with his character and life. She sees the countervailing evidence and feels the pull of it. At a certain (probably early) point, the mom should stay dogmatic about her son’s innocence even in the face of this evidence. Why? Because she has good reason to believe he didn’t do it. As the evidence gets sorted out, it may be that the mom’s evidence will be defeated and she should change her belief. But it could be that her unique perspective was completely right. Likewise, when it comes to our Christian faith, we should be dogmatic to a certain extent. This is a good thing while we sort out the evidence that’s before us.

Hang on!

I often encourage folks who are doubting to hang on. The reason is it can be difficult when one is in the throes of doubt to keep in view the other evidence one has for one’s Christian beliefs. Our doubts have a way of being in our face and clamoring for our attention. Again, this can be valuable because it is very likely that we should lean in and investigate those areas in which we are doubting. I’m not saying hang on and blindly trust that Christianity is true in the end. But hang on as you address the moment of doubt. After investigation, you may change your belief. But you may find as you lean in that the doubt can be adequately addressed. Either way, you will be more rational and on a surer intellectual foundation.

 

""/
Christian Faith, Doubt

Did Jesus Himself Have Faith?

December 14, 2017

The Bible calls us to faith. Many Christian thinkers have seen faith as a moral virtue. At the same time, the Bible pictures Jesus as our moral exemplar. He’s the example after whom we should model our lives. What’s curious is the Bible never says that Jesus had faith. It would be odd if our moral exemplar lacked this primary Christian virtue.

Did Jesus have faith?

One may be lead to think Jesus did not have faith. This, I think, could be plausibly argued for. I don’t think it follows merely from the fact that the Bible never says Jesus had faith. This would be an argument from silence and we need to be careful in basing a claim on silence. A position like this should be motivated, I think, by other considerations. Ultimately, the issue seems to turn on what we mean by faith.

One of the most influential figures in the history of Christian theology, Thomas Aquinas, saw this. He said:

Faith…implies a certain defect…and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him (ST, ch. 9: ques. 7: article 3).

I would certainly agree that if faith implied a defect, then Jesus did not have faith since, as Christians, we are committed to a sinless Christ. But it’s not clear to me that faith necessarily implies a defect. What is the defect? For Aquinas, it is the lack of directly beholding God. Faith, for Aquinas, was a way of having knowledge of religious matters without direct experience of those things. We do not directly behold God–that is, he is unseen–therefore, we must know God by faith. Faith, he thought, was the for things unseen in his reading of Heb. 11:1. Unlike us, Aquinas thought Jesus had a kind of direct vision of God throughout his earthly life such that religious matters were not unseen for him. He didn’t have this defect or this lack. So faith was unnecessary for Jesus.

What is faith?

Now if Aquinas was right that faith is a way of knowing and this way is necessitated because of a lack or defect, then surely it follows that Jesus did not have faith. I just don’t think Aquinas is right here. As I’ve argued before, even though there are a number of epistemological issues related to faith, I don’t think faith is an epistemology. That is, on my view, faith is not a way of knowing.

The gist of the view is that faith is a form of active or, what I call, ventured trust. It is where we stake our faith or trust in some object. I venture my life on the well-functioning of an airplane…but only when I get on board. This is analogous to Christian faith except that I venture my life on the person of Christ and truths of the gospel. Epistemology comes into it precisely because I need to know who (or whom) I should trust. Evidence should guide us to those things that are worthy of our ventured trust.

Jesus indeed had faith

But if faith is ventured trust, then it seems Jesus is a paragon of faith. We see, in Christ, a full and whole life ventured in trust on the reality of God. Again, even if Jesus had a direct view of God, then this in no way counts against his having faith understood as ventured trust. In fact, if Jesus had a direct view of God, then this would provide him with ideal reason to trust. Jesus could rest certain (literally) in the trustworthiness of God.

A benefit of this view is it avoids the awkwardness of saying Jesus is our moral exemplar but except for faith. It seems much more plausible to think of Jesus as our model for all the virtues.

Evidence is important

Seeing evidence as important for faith is, I think, good news because evidence matters for most areas of our lives. Why should our Christian beliefs be any different? With this understanding, if someone has doubts or questions, then they should investigate the evidence. In other words, investigating is not somehow inconsistent with having faith. It is, in my view, part of what it means to pursue the knowledge of God.

What do we find when we investigate the evidence? Do we have reason to venture our life on the reality of God? I and many others find the evidence very compelling and have given our lives to it.

[Related post: The Risk of Doubting One’s Faith]

""/
Christian Faith, Doubt

God Never Requires Us to Believe without Evidence

November 14, 2017

In his An Essay on the Divine Authority of the New Testament (1804), 19th Century theologian, David Bogue once said:

God never requires us to believe without evidence: but where sufficient evidence is given, he is highly and justly displeased at men’s unbelief.[1]

Is this right? Does God ever require us to believe without evidence? I say he does not.

I’ve often asked my students whether they can come up with even one example in Scripture of someone who is asked to believe blindly—that is, to believe without evidence. It’s harder than you might think…okay, I think it’s impossible, since it is not there. But feel free to try. Every time God requires belief, there are experiences that accompany the request. Take, for example, Moses being asked to confront Pharaoh. There’s of course the burning bush as well as other confirming miracles. Or take Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus. He’s literally blinded by an unexplainable light and talked to by Jesus himself. It’s not that these couldn’t have questioned these experiences and disbelieved. In fact, disbelief is always possible with experience (more on this below). The point, however, is it was very rational for them to believe. That is, these extraordinary experiences provided good evidence that rationally supported their beliefs.

Abraham and Isaac

The prime example that people often allege as a clear case of blind faith is Abraham’s being asked to sacrifice Isaac. But, as crazy as this experience must have been, when we look closely at the account (Gen. 22), we see that Abraham acted rationally. How so? We should keep in mind that just having Isaac was already a miraculous experience. God appeared to Abraham and verbally told him that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, would give birth. Abraham actually didn’t even believe this at first because Sarah was a wee bit beyond the child-bearing years at 90 years old! But her becoming pregnant and giving birth to Isaac seemed to change his mind rather quickly. This same divine voice spoke again verbally to Abraham and commanded him to go up to sacrifice the miracle child. Given this history and the verbal expression of God himself, Abraham clearly believed God on the basis of evidence.

Competing Reasons

There’s no doubt Abraham had competing reasons. Isaac was the promised child after all. All the promises that God had given to Abraham were to be given and furthered by Isaac. There’s also his obligations as a father to protect his child that had to have caused him to question whether he should do this thing. All of this, I would think, would provide Abraham with a tremendous intellectual conflict. Does this mean he therefore acted in blind faith? No! It seems to me he made the rational evidentially-based choice in believing God (even if he didn’t understand just what God was up to) and even rationalized it by expecting God to raise Isaac from the dead (according to Heb. 11:19).

Rational Trust

We often find ourselves in similar situations. We are confident we are called to something we don’t understand. We don’t have the first clue how things will play out or even how all the ends will meet. And yet we are called to believe. We are called to trust. However, this is not blind faith. I suspect we have very good evidence for the belief. It’s just that we don’t know all details and we are going to have to trust. The point is, though, trust is the rational thing to do in this case.

Or perhaps we have doubts about our Christian faith. Again, I don’t believe God expects us to believe blindly. The good news: there no shortage of evidence for the truth of Christianity. As long as there have been Christianity, Christians have explored the evidence for its truth.

For Abraham, he was ultimately rational given his knowledge of God. I suspect that it took the very voice of God very God, the creator of the universe, whom Abraham knew very well to be trustworthy to move forward. His neighbor’s voice wouldn’t have been sufficient. A priest or a prophet’s voice perhaps wouldn’t have done it. But that familiar voice, given the bigness of his theology, gave him reason to believe.

[1] You can find the context of this quote and a link for Bogue’s full work at The Library of Historical Apologetics http://historicalapologetics.org/god-never-requires-us-to-believe-without-evidence/

""/
Apologetics, Apologetics for kids, Christian Faith, Doubt

4 Steps to Help Kids Ask Questions Stuck in their Heads

November 2, 2017

Every survey and researcher says that students have a lot of questions about their faith. This seems to essentially define Millennials and Gen Y from older generations. Whereas older generations were content with certain presuppositions about faith, youth today are suspicious and often doubtful of these things. But here’s a funny thing. I get the privilege to speak regularly to students about faith and apologetics. At these events, there will occasionally be a Q and A time. When it is thrown open for questions, it’s very often the case that there is…awkward silence (crickets in the background). (whispering) Psst, where’s all the questions? What’s going on?

What is going on here? Well I don’t think the researchers have it wrong. I do think students have questions and they can, often times, be burdened by these. I think it is that the questions haven’t always coalesced in their minds into English language yet.

This can be a really rough place to be. One has a question that’s bothering them and creating cognitive dissonance, but they cannot even ask the question that’s there. It can be especially rough since that question may continue to nag them and even create further doubts. If they could just ask the question, it may be there’s a really good answer waiting in the wings. But it’s currently stuck and, thus, they are currently stuck.

We must get our kids asking their questions and seeing the resources of the Christian faith. An important role for youth leaders and parents to play is to help their kids articulate the questions they in fact have. To be clear, this isn’t telling your kids what to think. It is not telling them what questions they should have. It is helping them surface and articulate their questions.

Here are 4 steps to help kids ask the questions stuck in their heads.

  1. Enter into their world.

The first thing is to enter their world. This is perhaps the most difficult step, especially if you haven’t done this much to date. But we’ve got to meet them where they are at. We need to notice what they like, what bothers them, what repulses them, what do they tend to emphasize, what sorts of things change their mind on issues, etc. Every generation is different. There is said to be one of the greatest generation gaps that has ever existed today. I’m not sure if that’s right or even how that is measured, but it seems clear the world they move in is substantively different and you need to get to know it to help the ask their questions.

  1. Listen and affirm them in the questions they ask.

I want to also suggest you create a safe space for them to ask any question at all. This is perhaps the scariest part. My wife and I have always told our kids they can ask us any question in the world and we’ll do our best to answer it (always in age appropriate ways) without any condemnation. There is, for us, no question that is off limits.

Now you have to cultivate the art of listening in these situations. Listen to them. Listen to what they are saying on their terms. Listen especially to what they are not saying. It’s often that the good stuff hangs just behind what they say.

Now it’s not my view that every question is a good one. There are dumb questions. But any question, insofar as it is a genuine question, is good to ask. And again, ill-formed questions will often stand just on the outside of a great question. Thus I think we should always affirm our kids in the questions they ask. If it is interesting to my kids, it is thereby interesting to me. If you make them feel bad in asking a question, they will start going elsewhere for answers.

  1. Ask clarifying questions and push them to dig deeper.

If they’ve begun to ask some questions, great. But it may not be the question that’s bothering them. Clarify what they are saying. State their question back to them in different words to make sure you’ve got it. “I hear you asking…” and be ready to have missed their point.

If they still don’t know what to ask, give them some prompts. I find that I can typically start in talking about God or the Bible and the questions often come. By pushing them to dig deeper, they’ll find things that don’t make sense to them.

  1. Walk together in dialogue as you search for answers together.

Chances are you will get thrown for a loop. I know I do all the time with students. I often have to give my best stab at something and then apologize and promise to get back to them. But I make it a point to get back to them. And this is the good stuff. Walking together in a dialogue (rather than preaching at them in monologue form) will draw you closer together and help both of you to clarify your thoughts and believe in more rational ways.

 

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Doubt

Jesus Thinks Evidence Helps Address Doubt

October 20, 2017

A Question

As John the Baptist sits in a jail cell, he sends a few of his students to ask Jesus a question. Here it is:

“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3; see also Lk. 7:20)

It’s a striking question since, well, it’s John the Baptist asking the question. This is the one who, in his ministry, prepared the way for Jesus. At their first meeting (ex utero!), John the Baptist himself, in effect, confesses that Jesus is the one who is to come just before John baptizes him (John 1:29-34). One would have thought if anyone was confident Jesus was the promised Messiah, it would have been John the Baptist. But he’s not sure and he’s asking.

Embarrassing

It’s interesting that both Matthew and Luke record this story. It’s might be thought to be a bit embarrassing that not even John the Baptist is sure that Jesus is the Messiah. If the Gospel writers were trying to get people to believe Jesus is Messiah, then it would have made sense for them to leave this one out (just think how odd this story would have been to include if the Jesus mythicists are correct that Jesus never existed). But, as is usual (I would argue), the Gospel writers don’t attempt to avoid what’s embarrassing and there’s so often a deep lesson to be learned.

What’s going on?

What was going on here for John? What we know is that John is sitting in prison for publicly criticizing Herod Antipas and he will be beheaded soon enough. Given these dire circumstances, many have speculated John is at a very low point in his life. He is struggling. Despite the fact that he did the right thing, he is unjustly suffering for it. So the inference is this is causing John to doubt who Jesus is.

Now I’m not sure we can know the psychological states of John the Baptist. Is he downtrodden and struggling? The text doesn’t say. I know I’d be downtrodden and struggling in his situation. What we know is he’s asking. We know that he is unsure about Jesus. He’s clearly having some intellectual doubts.

Intellectual Doubt

What is intellectual doubt? It is when we experience an intellectual tension in our beliefs. What seems to happen is we begin to suspect a belief of ours may be wrong. Put another way, we feel the force or pull of some objection to one of our beliefs. It’s clear, by John’s earlier confession, he believed Jesus was the Messiah. At some point, he began to feel the pull of the idea that Jesus was not the guy and that perhaps they should be expecting someone else.

I have argued there is great value in experiencing times of intellectual doubt since, as we press in and investigate, we can be led to a greater faith. What becomes really interesting in this passage is Jesus’s reaction to John’s question.

Two Aspects of Jesus’s Reaction to John’s Doubt

First, he does not rebuke John’s questioning of him. This is important. I don’t recall one time when Jesus turns down an honest question. With John the Baptist, Jesus even goes to commend him as, in one sense, the greatest who has ever lived (Matt. 11:11; Lk. 7:28)! This is in the face of his doubting who Jesus is. So it seems okay to wonder. It’s okay to not be sure. There are other sorts of questions, often posed by Jewish religious leaders, where Jesus does rebuke. However, these are not genuine seekers and their questions aren’t designed to even get answers. When it comes to genuine seekers, Jesus welcomes.

Second, Jesus points at evidence as the answer to John’s question. The passage goes on:

[Jesus] replied to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news, and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me.” (vs. 22-23)

Notice Jesus does not merely tell John “the answer is, yes, I am the Messiah.” Who knows, this might have satisfied John. He also doesn’t tell John to just drum up more faith. He offers actual evidence to address John’s doubts.

What seems clear is that evidence helps our intellectual doubts. It may not solve everything going on in our hearts. I’m convinced that, for some, no amount of evidence is ever going to satisfy. This is because they are, like the Jewish religious leaders, not genuine seekers. I’m also convinced that if we approach open to have our questions addressed, there is a compelling case to be made.

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Dialogue, Doubt

The Importance of an Open Mind that Closes

October 13, 2017

Minds Were Made to Shut

We typically think having an open mind is a good thing. And in certain situations, it certainly is a good thing. For example, we should have an open mind when we are beginning an inquiry. If we have no settled views on some matter, then it would be quite foolish to hold strongly to a particular view. We should be open to a variety of voices of authority on the matter as begin our inquiry.

But once we have settled our views about some matter, it seems our minds should shut. That is, once we have surveyed and evaluated the most plausible views on some matter, we need not and should not stay completely open minded any longer.

G.K. Chesterton once said:

An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut. (Illustrated London News. October 10, 1908)

Open Mindedness as a Virtue?

When we begin to think carefully about open mindedness, we see that open mindedness, without qualification, is not a virtue. To remain completely open minded about p when we have good reason to believe p is, say, false is not acting with intellectual virtue. As evidence comes, then we should, in a sense, become more and more close minded.

Is it really okay to be close minded at times? Yes, because not all views are equally plausible, especially after some reasonable inquiry. If a view proves to be false or irrational, then it seems to be a good idea (and very normal) to foreclose on that view as a genuine possibility. After we have looked into the matter, we may not know exactly what view to hold, but we often know which views are clearly false.

Should We Ever Be Absolutely Close Minded?

Do we ever come to shut our minds completely and absolutely? Though it isn’t really implied by the Chesterton quote, my own view is that it should be very rare for our minds to shut completely and absolutely. That is, we should shut our minds on things we have reason to believe are true, but be willing reopen when countervailing evidence presents itself. This is because it is at least possible to be wrong about the things we believe. Again, we need not be completely open to any and all views given the evidence we possess, we should still listen to the most plausible opposing views in case we need to reopen in light of new evidence.

My Mind is Shut on Christianity

It was really important for me, in my Christian journey, to have an open mind about alternative views. I came to doubt my faith and the truth of Christianity. Consequently, I systematically considered as many relevantly different worldviews as I could. I had an open mind and tried to approach these without bias. In complete honesty, I found myself surprised at how badly supported nonchristian worldviews are compared to the support and evidence for Christianity, including atheism and even agnosticism. Most other worldviews do not even think in terms of evidence and objectivity. For example, one is hard pressed to find Buddhist apologetics these days! And it seems this is for good reason. There isn’t much for evidence for Buddhism as a worldview. When it came to atheism and agnosticism, there were far too many questions that these left unexplained. In fact, it has always seemed to me that atheism fails to explain the most important aspects of life.

My mind came to shut on Christianity. It would take quite a lot, at this point, to unseat my Christian intellectual commitments. It’s possible, but I don’t think it is likely. If Christianity is false, there should be plenty of evidence that presents itself in which case I would reconsider my commitments. But I’ve been at this pursuit for almost 20 years and the counter evidence is lacking. There are objections, but I find satisfying answers to these objections and then some.

So here I am, I have been completely open minded along the way and I’m willing to reconsider, but, at this point, I am shut on truth of the Christian way.

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Doubt

Doubt That Is Toxic for Faith

September 25, 2017

Doubts

Over the last few years, I’ve been known to say things like “doubt is a good thing for Christian faith” and I go on to explain that doubts can lead to truth and an even greater faith. But about 1/3 of Christians initially react to my saying this with a distinct look of horror on their face. If I have enough time, I can typically explain enough that the look of horror goes away (at least on the outside!). What I say is, in doubting, there’s a real value in getting our hands dirty with objections to Christianity precisely because there is a robust case for Christianity. My experience and the experience of many I know is when we genuinely pursue these matters, Christianity provides deeply satisfying answers to our doubts. When we get these answers, we secure a greater faith.

But these are doubts of the intellectual variety. It is where we are wondering or are curious about some fact or other. To be sure, it may be a pronounced struggle, but (and this is really important) this form of doubt is entirely consistent with faith. We can have a variety of questions about Christianity and still maintain faith.

I often use the example of flying on an airplane. I have a lot of questions about how it is possible for a craft made of mostly metal to safely cruise 6 miles off the planet. I have some unanswered questions about this, but I can quite rationally get on board my next flight. I can place my faith in the air plane in the face of my doubts. Similarly, I can have questions—a lot of questions!—and still place my faith in Christ.

Toxic Doubt

But there’s another form of doubt (that seemingly 1/3 of people I talk to have in mind). It is a bit more complicated and is, in a way, toxic for Christian faith and relationships, in general. This is where we lack trust and doubt a person him or herself. It’s not propositional here. It is personal. Perhaps we’ve lost our trust in their character or integrity. This happens in marriages from time to time. For a variety of reasons, one can no longer trust his or her spouse. One is in this unfortunate place of doubting him or her. This is really toxic for a marriage since faith in the other is lost. The survival of the marriage, it seems to me, depends on regaining this lost trust.

The parallel for Christian faith should be obvious. When we lack trust in God, this is of course a bad place to be as it relates to our Christian faith. In fact, if Christian faith is a state of trust (as I argue here, here, and here), then this form of doubt just is to fail to have faith. One cannot doubt (in this sense) and have faith.

Sometimes we are completely justified in lacking faith in someone. Spouses and other people in our lives are sometimes unfaithful and it is completely appropriate to doubt them. I of course do not think that this is the case with God, but I won’t take the space here to defend this claim. I will say, however, I am more certain about God’s fidelity, then just about anything of my Christian beliefs. But for the sake of this post (and I know not everyone reading this agrees), I’m going to assume that when we doubt God in this way, we aren’t thinking rightly about God.

Addressing Toxic Doubt

What should we do then when we doubt (as in lack trust in) God? We are, it seems, “like the surging sea, driven and tossed by the wind…being double-minded and unstable in all [our] ways” (Jm. 1:8-9).  It seems to me the answer is the same as it is for all doubts: we’ve got to pursue truth and knowledge. If one is doubting one’s spouse in a possibly inappropriate way, one should pursue the truth about one’s spouse. One needs to figure out whether he or she has in fact been unfaithful.

On the God front, apologetics may prove helpful here, but it is not the full answer. It seems one must also press in relationally (true of marriage too!) to taste of God’s fidelity. One should dive in devotionally and allow God to provide evidence of his character. This is coming face to face with God, confessing our doubts, and opening our hearts and minds to his corrective. It’s not easy but, in the process, there’s rest for your soul.

Consider the words of Jesus:

Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take up my yoke and learn from me, because I am lowly and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Mt. 11:28-30)

It’s a standing invitation.

1 2
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta
Welcome to my blog! ~Travis Dickinson, PhD
Recent Posts
Top Posts