Faith and Doubt -- Thoughts for a Friday
There is a need, by some, to have complete certainty. They want a faith that is straight forward and absolute. Such a faith will allow little or no difference of opinion or interpretation. Such a faith is often one that breeds violence -- witness the various extremist groups active today, and not just Islamic ones. If we are to truly engage our world in a positive manner, then we must be willing to live with doubt.
Philip Clayton, early in the third chapter of his book Adventures in the Spirit (a chapter I've not yet completed), speaks of a "stage-three" dialogue with science, etc. To engage in stage-three dialogue one must be willing and able to handle a great deal of uncertainty and change. To give some grounding to his thoughts, he quotes from Paul Tillich's The Dynamics of faith. Tillich, he notes, suggests that there can be no true faith without a mixture of doubt (Adventures in the Spirit, Fortress, p. 57). I don't have a copy of Dynamic of Faith in front of me, but this quote from that book as reproduced in Clayton's is interesting.
Ultimately faith deals with things that lie beyond rational proof. We must always accept the possibility that we're wrong, while remaining confident in that which we believe. When doubt is mixed in with faith, then there will be humility. Ah, a bit of humility would be good for us all.
Note: I'm reading Clayton as part of the Transforming Theology project.
Philip Clayton, early in the third chapter of his book Adventures in the Spirit (a chapter I've not yet completed), speaks of a "stage-three" dialogue with science, etc. To engage in stage-three dialogue one must be willing and able to handle a great deal of uncertainty and change. To give some grounding to his thoughts, he quotes from Paul Tillich's The Dynamics of faith. Tillich, he notes, suggests that there can be no true faith without a mixture of doubt (Adventures in the Spirit, Fortress, p. 57). I don't have a copy of Dynamic of Faith in front of me, but this quote from that book as reproduced in Clayton's is interesting.
About the object of our faith, doubt is unavoidable. It is not the enemy of faith but a part of it, to be met with risk and courage . . . Doubt is included in every act of faith. (Clayton, p. 57)
Ultimately faith deals with things that lie beyond rational proof. We must always accept the possibility that we're wrong, while remaining confident in that which we believe. When doubt is mixed in with faith, then there will be humility. Ah, a bit of humility would be good for us all.
Note: I'm reading Clayton as part of the Transforming Theology project.
Comments
BTW, I just started my own personal blog (finally) which will be a collection of everything I write at American Creation and elsewhere. The blog is:
http://hartbrad.blogspot.com
Moreover, doubt is also a valuable tool of faith, compelling us to examine what we believe and not take it for granted. And in the process of examination we can claim honesty and integrity in our faith, because it has been examined, and nothing is presumed, just accepted on faith, based upon our trust in God. Without doubt, there is no need for trust.
And if courage is a meaningful virtue, then the courageous believer, like Thomas, acknowledges the leaps of faith, before and after he jumps.
John
Oh Yeah!!! LOL! Why would you ever be confident in what you believe if you doubt whether it is true???
You people are exactly right about one thing though: you need a LOT of humility. Still LOL!
-Chuck
It's not a question of Scripture being wrong about something, but about whether certain statements should be taken literally. Let's take for instance -- Noah's flood. Is it metaphor or is it history? If history, was it universal or local?
There are differences in accounts between the four gospels. Now its possible that all four are correct, but its difficult to harmonize everything. The question is: what value is gained by arguing that scripture is historically or scientifically accurate in all that it says.
Then there are simply descriptions of God that seem at points to run contrary to other descriptions of God's character. For instance, it suggests in Joshua that Joshua should cleanse the land of the Canaanites. Was that really God? Would God countenance genocide?
There are numerous other examples.
I think it's worth noting that Gleason Archer put together a rather large volume trying to answer all the "apparent contradictions." Now he thought he could harmonize them all, but many of them require a lot of mental gymnastics to accept.
I'd rather just listen for God's voice in the text and not pretend that there are no difficulties or challenges.
The value from my perspective about the accuracy of the Bible centers around its central claim to be the word of God. I notice how many of the other posts use the cracked door of issues with scripture to tear down all the promises, or simply there is no sacred text.
We are probably closer than we both know about scripture though. I agree that we can't take every bit of scripture literally. I don't believe Jesus meant for us to poke out our eyes. But I could see that being morphed to mean.. if you struggle with internet pornography, then poke out the "eye" by cutting off your internet. The line I have to stand on is if we start dismissing items we don't like or make sense to us.. then we risk having a scripture of little or no value. Nothing is sacred.
Chuck
I affirm that the bible is true. I just don't accept that it is literal. I think that the truth is often not about facts and details, but about the underlying message. The genesis creation stories are true, God did create all, and he did so detail by detail, and it was good, detail by detail, and God revealed this to us so that we could be certain that whatever there is, it is "of God"; God created us in his image and likeness, we are his children - we are not some thing which he created, but so much more dear to him. And he created humanity male and female, dependent on one another for life, love and companionship, and he raised them above the rest of created nature by breathing his spirit into them. This spirit makes us special in all of creation, it is our soul, and it is the mental quality which allows us to commune with God like no other creature.
These are the truths of Genesis.
I too cringe when I see jetisoning texts which they can't come to terms with. It is there for a reason, it has a truth, and in time if you stay with it, God will reveal a truth which you need to hear in that text.
Some texts are uncomfortable for me, and when that happens I just set it aside, and commit myself to reapproach it latter, when the Spirit leads me and when I am more open to the message Gd has planted there for me. I will admit that when that happens it often crosses my mind that this text is more of men than of God, but then I acknowledge that God allowed it to be preserved here, there must be a reason - in time and with prayer it may come to me.
John
I think you catch my sentiments exactly. I don't feel we have to take every word literally. Imagine if I give you directions to my house and say go down a mile and take a right. The length may actually be 1.1 miles, but we agree they are correct directions. Or if Jesus actually fed 4,890 people.. I think we would all be ok with the verbage of feeding 5,000. My concern is when people say..."a snake can't talk, so throw that out" or "a man can't live in a whale, so that didn't happen". I admit many stories are hard to reconcile with science as we know it today, but that of course is where faith comes in. My "faith" in science is also cautious, it wasn't that long ago that it was accepted scientific fact that the earth was flat or a cell is just a very simple organism.
I affirm that I too have trouble with certain passages. I pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth as I digest the passage.
Again.. I feel my feelings are pretty close to yours and Bob. I just cringe when the term "myth" is used to describe a story in the Bible. The word myth is used for a known false account.. ie urban myth.
Chuck
I wanted to pick up on the word myth, because I think you put your finger on something. There is a difference in the way the word is used critically and the way it's used popularly.
Popularly, you're right, it is something that is false or of no real value -- a legend. But when used critically it speaks of a story that carries meaning for a people.
You mention Jonah. Taking it literally poses significant problems, but what if Jonah isn't meant to be taken literally, but is instead meant to be taken as a parable -- by the way I learned this at Fuller. If we focus on the "historicity" of the text, we miss the point, which is one of openness to the other. Jonah doesn't want to preach to the Ninevites because he knows they'll repent and God will forgive them. But in his mind, they are not worthy of such forgiveness. They deserve destruction -- so why warn them.
If Jonah is a parable and not literal history, does that make the text wrong? I think not. The question is: what can we learn from this text for today? I think a lot can be learned from it.
Thanks for helping bring clarity to your position and this issue. My obvious concern would be a Bible that is "picked over", but I don't feel that is where you were going.
-Chuck
If the story of Jonah is a parable, then so must Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection be a parable also. I won't take the time to explain all the problems that would cause.
Refusing to believe what God has said is called unbelief. Cornwall, any believer could tell right quick that you're an unbeliever.
And he was in the hart of the earth for three days and three nights, i.e. Friday all day, Saturday all day and Sunday all day, as well as Friday night, Saturday night, and Sunday night.
Or was Jonah actually dead while he was in the belly of the fish, and resurrected, just like Jesus, after three days and three nights(?!?) and before Jesus, Jonah arose to be with the father in heaven, and perhaps the first to sit at his right hand?
Gary, you have to acknowledge that Jesus was very good with stories and parables. Here again in this the Gospel story Jesus is drawing a poetic parallel. And if you begin to say a part of the parallel is poetic and a part is absolutely literal you will just get tied up in knots.
Jesus was speaking in metaphor, attempting to point to a Scriptural prophecy pointing to his own expected death and resurrection - for three days he would leave the world of men, then he would return and take up his perhaps most important mission, i.e., his Resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. Jesus was not trying to affirm the literal truth of the story of Jonah, nor was he claiming an exact parallel between what was said to have happened to Jonah and what he knew would happen to himself.
John