A Defense of the Rational - Part 2 - Dealing with Doubt

This is part 2 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt.

In the last post I argued that both special and general revelation must, by definition, be mutually true. So when we see an apparent contradiction between the two that brings up questions of whether or not our understanding of the Bible is true or our interpretation of the scientific findings are misinterpreted. Questioning our preconceived Biblical convictions can be a frightening thing. It's usually easier to just dismiss the findings, but the questions won't go away if you just ignore them. In other words, we begin to doubt.

Nobody comes to the faith for purely intellectual reasons. While arguments, logic, and evidence can certainly aid in bringing one closer to the faith, there are many other emotional and sociological influences that can make someone accept or refuse. At the end of the day, it is God who brings about the faith in someone. The point is that there are more than simply "logical" reasons for one to deny the faith, or at the very least, doubt.

But what is doubt? It's is one of those loaded words in the Christian faith that, I will start by saying, may not be what you might think. Essentially doubt is having an alternative set of beliefs. The question is whether what you believe or the alternative "doubting" is more credible.

One simple example is miracles. Chances are you've never seen them, and by definition, as an act of God, you just can't repeat them or study them. They're anomalies to the typical patterns of nature. So when the Bible records accounts of the miraculous a "rational" person would obviously doubt it.

It was once argued that because miracles don't happen, they therefore can't happen. One out of every one dead person has remained dead, therefore resurrection is impossible. Actually, this is circular logic, and one does not necessarily follow the other. But more importantly, the assumption that miracles can't happen stems not from empirical study but from philosophical presuppositions. Namely, that God does not exist. If God exists, it's perfectly plausible miracles could happen. It's well within reason that if God can create the entire world, there's nothing to stop Him from doing anything else miraculous.

So, as Christians we accept God as being the creator and sustainer of the universe and the Bible to be his True and inspired word. We know that our sins are forgiven on the basis of Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, and that we are granted new life because He also defeated the curse of death through His resurrection. If we begin to doubt his resurrection, for whatever reason, then we are presented with two sets of propositions.

One is that Jesus really did die and rise again. The other is that he did not. Both of them carry the weight of enormous implications, and the question is which one is more credible. Just as doubts don't all necessarily stem from intellectual obstacles, they won't simply go away through rational argument. But they do need to be examined for what they are. It may be short and simple, it may be a very long process, and you may find that your doubts ended up being more truthful than your original beliefs. By the time you come out at the end you're more than likely going to find your faith has been strengthened.

Doubts will never disappear. As one goes away, another will come. But doubt, it must be said, is not the same as unbelief. Our faith may falter greatly at times. Indeed, it is never perfect. But it is not our fervour that saves, it is the object of our faith. We are not saved because of faith but through faith. Though we continue to doubt, it is Christ who accomplishes his good work until the end.

A Defense of the Rational - Part 1

This is part 1 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt. 

If you know me well you know that I love reading about theology, philosophy, science, and apologetics. Aside from the mere fascination I have with reading and learning it's helped to solidify and strengthen my faith in many things which I've already believed. So I was struck when I heard a comment last month to be wary of such things.

I'm not entirely certain what precipitated the concern in this particular situation, but it did lead me to ponder the possible pitfalls of reading such "rational" material. In my own defence, having an inquisitive and often skeptical mind drives me into the study of matters that I find deeply important, as it would for anybody. I don't read for the sake of gaining knowledge as an end in itself. Nor do I read without discernment in both the Christian and non-Christian writings. And as much as I enjoy the intellectual aspect of Christian belief, it's impossible to separate Christianity into its so-called rational and existential sides. They're both equally important and it would be a false dichotomy to try to drive a wedge between the two. They coexist as part of the whole of reality. Christianity, as it was once said, is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I would add that one cannot be true without the other.

As Christians we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That is, we believe it to be Truth, or what the reformers called "special revelation." In the different disciplines in the sciences and humanities, you find the study of creation, or what the reformers called "general revelation." Through study we come to know about the truth of the world around us. In the Christian understanding of reality it would make absolutely no sense to pit one against the other. General revelation and special revelation, if properly understood, must be in mutual agreement with each other.

Therefore if you find something in the Bible that seems to contradict scientific findings you find yourself in a dilemma. Is the Bible false? Or is your interpretation of the Bible mistaken? Is the scientific findings false? Or is your interpretation of the scientific findings mistaken? If we believe both special and general revelation to be mutually true we are inevitably going to have to wrestle with these questions at some point. I imagine this is where the concern may have come from.

Questions like these aren't limited to the natural sciences but apply equally to questions of ethics and morality. For example, Christians believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. We believe it to be part of God's original order of creation and therefore it serves a specific purpose both in relation to God and in relation to each other in society. To allow that to fall apart is not only detrimental in our relationship to God (i.e. disobedience) but to society as a whole (i.e. causing instability).

Now suppose a sociological study is undertaken that looks at the effects of stability on societies where there are essentially no marriages as Christians understand it. It might be measured in terms of crime statistics, economy, etc. If the study were to conclude that there is essentially no difference whatsoever compared to societies with strong marriages what are we to say? Even though Christians feel morally obligated to keep to a Biblical view of marriage, we would rightfully say that it's important for the rest of society at large regardless of competing religious views. It's fairly likely we would either doubt the findings or simply dismiss it altogether.

But what if the study was done in honesty? What if there were no underlying agendas in mind and those were simply "the facts." The truth of Christianity does not depend on the effectiveness of strong marriages on the welfare of society, but it would beg the question about the purpose of marriage outside of Christian circles.

It's merely hypothetical of course. No such study has ever existed that has made that conclusion. But it demonstrates how we might come to question our Biblical interpretations or our understanding of marriage. I, for one, am one of those people who say, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. But to simply be dismissive of studies that appear to contradict my understanding of Biblical truth would be, in itself, logically inconsistent.

This goes back to the relation between special and general revelation. General revelation isn't going to be able to tell us about who God is, but it can certainly give us enough to know He's there, He's personal, and that there is some kind of moral code to be followed. It's implicit both in nature and our inescapable experiences. Special revelation, on the other hand, reveals to us what General revelation cannot. It speaks of who God is, his relationship to us, and what he has done. In either case, what is revealed in one is only going to confirm what is revealed in the other. They cannot contradict one another.

Indeed, both special and general revelation are uniquely intertwined. Every other religion has its own moral codes and its own dogmas. But those moral codes and dogmas (in varying degrees) are distinct from science and history. That is, they don't depend on any kind of historical or physical realities. They cannot be proven. This is why you see the prevalence of the privatization of religion (the belief that they are merely personal preferences and have little bearing on anyone or anything else). In Christianity its truth depends on historical and physical realities.

That is to say Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of moral standards and customs to adhere to. It is not some wisdom passed on through the pens of certain men in the past but is about God being directly involved in our realities. Creation demonstrates the handiwork of God, and the truth of Christianity depends on the veracity of real historical events. Special revelation is the unfolding drama of what God has done in what we call general revelation.

Therefore, if the Bible truly is the word of God, everything that we find in the world around us, rightly understood, will necessarily bear witness to it. So then, what does the evidence suggest? That God is real, and that Christ has risen! The more I discover, the more my faith is strengthened.


Coming next time
Part 2 - What about doubts?



...

Back from break...

Look! No posts for an entire month. That's ok, this blog is still alive. This past September I enjoyed my first week long vacation since my honeymoon four years ago. It was a well timed and much needed break. In the past month I was able to do a lot of interesting reading, although not as much as I had hoped. But also, beginning yesterday, the church I attend began a new Sunday evening DVD series based on Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God." There's a great many things to reflect on which I hope to distill in this blog for your reading pleasure. In the mean time, I'm back, and keep an eye out for some posts coming in the new future. Have a nice day, God bless.

What is Ben Reading? Self-Esteem, Postmodernism

Another big-name newspaper editorial on self-esteem. As I've said before, I'm glad this is catching on.

And, for a quick preview on a future blog post, check out this article on the Death of Postmodernism. It's one of those rare moments when I can look around and say, "I told you so!" More on that later.

And it would only be fair to thank the editors over at The Gospel Coalition website for directing me to these pages. If you haven't seen what this group is about I highly recommend you check them out. They've had a few conferences now and all the media is available online.

On Under-programming Your Church

Here's a blog post I came across that I heartily agree with -- 10 reasons to under-program your church. Or rather, de-program your church. In other words, 10 reasons why maybe you should start removing some programs from your church even if you think they're good ideas.

Better than just removing programs to allow breathing space is to understand their inherent limitations. All good church programs are well meaning, and many of them can be very important and uplifting for those involved. The best programs are those that are organically grown from within the church as a worshipful response to the message of the Gospel from the pulpit. God certainly has, and continues to bless those efforts. But they are not his ordinary, prescribed means of grace.

The means of Grace refers to that which God has prescribed as a means of creating faith in the hearts of believers. It includes Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and of course, the written Word and proclamation of the Gospel. John Calvin wrote that there are three marks of a true church; the Gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered, and discipline is exercised.

If a church didn't have any special programs I'd be suspicious of whether it even cared for its congregation or its surrounding community. But many programs are nothing more than bells and whistles, pernicious ceremonies, and amusing but meaningless activities. When the ordinary seems boring our reaction is often to craft our own experiences under the guise of worship. We busy ourselves with the experiential and the practical. More is better, we tell ourselves. But at the heart of these is a lack of faith in God's power to save through the ordinary.

Churches are often known for this program or that, its dynamic worship, its energetic leadership. These can often impress us and might help to attract a crowd. But there is an enormous multi-billion dollar entertainment industry that does a far better job of amusement than any church could do. But this should not be our worry. The more critical question is whether a church remain steadfast to the calling God has ordained for it.

Programs are designed to meet particular needs within a church and its community, (sometimes just felt needs) but they are only supplemental. It is Christ who made the supper, we only serve what he made. God knows what he's doing.

On Machen and our view of God and Man

J. Gresham Machen is probably more important to modern Christianity than people realize. Apart from the fact that he's not a well-known name like Calvin, or Luther, or more contemporaries like Tim Keller or John Piper, his book "Christianity and Liberalism" is one of those prophetic books that seems to become more relevant as time progresses. Despite its relatively small size, it represents a "tour de force" against the ongoing influence of the mainline liberal churches. 


The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task--she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible--especially in the life of Jesus--something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He. 
J. Gresham Machen - Chapter 2


In Chapter 2 Machen points out that the modern liberal preacher has a very different conception of God and man than that which is found in Scripture. What Machen has effectively done here is set you up for a proper understanding of the Law and Gospel. God reveals himself most specifically through the written word, and while our conception of God may be in part experiential, our experience isn't what has the last word on who we know God to be. In other words, experience is enough to grasp that there is a God, and that he is even a good and personal God. But experience alone cannot dictate our understanding of who God is. He has revealed himself to us through Scripture as well.


And we cannot have a proper understanding of ourselves apart from an understanding of God. One has to follow the other. Therefore, if our conception of God is contrary to that which is found in Scripture, so our view of man be inaccurate. We will inevitably make ourselves look better than we are.

Our understanding of who God is and who we are are summed up in Doctrinal terms. In other words, we need good Doctrine.

The word doctrine these days often conjures up feelings of old, boring, dry, "dead orthodoxy." The phrase "dead orthodoxy" is, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms and more of a perception than anything possibly true. But where "doctrine" is dismissed it is invariably replaced with a heap of exhortations which are powerless to save and burdensome to those who try to obey.

Hence the conclusion of Machen. A wrong view of God (ignorance of Biblical doctrine) leads to a view of man that presupposed the inherent goodness of man, which then reduces the task of the preacher to calling his congregation to mere good deeds. It does not create a repentant heart, and certainly doesn't lead to holiness.

Most importantly, it removes the Gospel, which has the power to save...

What is Ben Watching? - A Writer's Responsibility to Truth

By no means am I a professional writer. Writing isn't exactly something that comes naturally to me. It often feels about as cumbersome as reading, which I do slowly and laboriously. This is why I admire those prolific writers out there, and I'm thankful it's them and not myself who are able to write so many wonderful books. But even if I'm not gifted in writing, I really don't believe that just "blogging" gives me an excuse to write poorly.

Forgive me for possibly sounding elitist but I think writing is something we should take seriously. There's a certain degree of credibility that comes from writing well, but more importantly, I believe, is that we should write truthfully. In other words, instead of miring the literary world (and that includes the internet) with clumsy, opinionated, and feckless musings I would hope that what we read is actually worth our time. For goodness sake, I think your own dignity is at stake.

How refreshing, then, to come upon this video. I've never heard of either of these two gentlemen, but I couldn't help but respect what the author being interviewed has to say. 

John Wilson Interviews Larry Woiwode from Crossway on Vimeo.

Clumsy, opinionated, and feckless musing:

For the record, 10 years ago I would probably never have said anything like this. But 10 years ago I was still taking grammar and English lessons, which, to be honest, I'm still not terribly interested in. Although some of my American friends may criticize me for being a "grammar nazi." Even that's only because American vernacular has terrible grammar by nature. Seriously, you should know better. I digress.

The point is, Truth is something we should all take seriously. If you take Truth seriously it will invariably show up in your writings, even if you do have poor grammar and spelling. I find those that take Truth seriously end up writing less about themselves, and more about what is. They understand that Truth is something outside of themselves, so they're less inclined to write personal opinion. Yet Truth relates to us in such deep and profound ways it's nevertheless personal anyway.