Book Club Discussion: Doubt as a Necessary Element of Faith

Voltaire once said that “doubt is uncomfortable, certainty ridiculous.”

As we continue our discussion of Peter Rollins’ How (Not) to Speak of God, I’d like to explore the role that doubt plays in the faith experience. Having struggled with doubt throughout much of my adulthood, I think it’s important to honestly examine both its positive and negative effects, and to suggest that while doubt can be uncomfortable, it is no more dangerous than absolute certainty.

Central to Rollins’ approach to theology is maintaining a balance between “believing in God while remaining dubious concerning what one believes about God.” (26)

Rollins writes that “this unknowing is to be utterly distinguished from an intellectually lazy ignorance, for it is a type of unknowing which arises not from imprecision but rather from deep reflection and sustained meditation…It is a recognition that negation is embedded within, and permeates, all religious affirmation. It is an acknowledgement that a desert of ignorance exists in the midst of every oasis of understanding…This (approach) is not then some temporary place of uncertainty on the way to spiritual maturity, but rather is something that operates within faith as a type of heat-inducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidifying into idolatrous form.” (26-27) Don't you love that image?

With this in mind, Rollins concludes that “in contrast to the modern view that religious doubt is something to reject, fear or merely tolerate, doubt not only can be seen as an inevitable aspect of our humanity but also can be celebrated as a vital part of faith.” (33)

It seems to me that, when used properly, doubt helps prevent the believer from making God into an intellectual idol. Case in point: the Pharisees rejected Jesus primarily because they had already made up their minds about what the Messiah ought to look like, and Jesus didn’t fit the bill. They were studied in Scripture and in Jewish law and tradition, but because they were so convinced they were right, so unwilling to hold their beliefs about God with an open hand, they missed Him in his “distressing disguise.” They missed Him when He was right there in their midst, leading Jesus to proclaim, “I praise You, Father Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way is well-pleasing in your sight.”

Sometimes when people refer to having a “child-like faith,” they refer to an unquestioning commitment to one’s religious tradition. And yet, when I think of children, I think of their sometimes annoying tendency to ask a bunch of questions. (“Why is the sky blue? Why do people live in houses? Why do I have to go to bed at 9:00? Where do babies come from? Why do I have to ask my parents that last question?” etc.) Perhaps God desires a childlike faith in Him, complete with all the annoying questions, for questions reveal trust and humility.

I think it’s important to distinguish between doubting God and doubting what one believes about God. While the former can be spiritually destructive (I know, because I’ve been there), the latter enables the believer to encounter God in new and unexpected ways (I’ve been there too.)

The problem with absolute certainty is that it closes one off to the possibility of new revelation. In fact, it negates the need for faith altogether. Rollins writes, “A faith that only exist in the light of victory and certainty is one which really affirms the self while pretending to affirm Christ…Only a genuine faith can embrace doubt, for such a faith does not act because of a self-interested reason (such as fear of hell or desire for heaven) but acts simply because it must.” (34)

With this in mind, I think it’s possible to reconcile the necessity doubting one’s theology with James’ warning that “the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.”

In this passage, James is talking about doubt in the context of praying for wisdom, in the context of action. He says that “if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But he must ask in faith without any doubting.”

So James is urging his readers to ask God to give them wisdom for enduring the trials in their lives, with the expectation that God will in fact do so. He is asking them to take a step of faith, to make a commitment to prayer without proof or an absolute guarantee that things will work out. He is asking that they show faith through their actions.

In the end, I would conclude that doubt is not the opposite of faith. Disobedience is the opposite of faith. Furthemore, certainty is not a sign of faith, but a sign of idolatry because certainty requires no faith. What do you think?


One of my favorite poems of all time is Tennyson’s “In Memoriam.” Written over a 17-year period, the lengthy piece describes Tennyson’s struggle with doubt, brought on by the death of a close friend as well as discoveries concerning evolution and science. (I love how the poem addresses doubt from both emotional and intellectual angles.) One of the most quoted lines of the poem is, “there lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in all the creeds.”

However, my favorite lines, the ones that to me best describe the painful experience of doubt (both doubting theology and doubting God Himself), come at the end of the poem. I like that for Tennyson, resolution comes, not from reason or proof or certainty, but from faith.

    That which we dare invoke to bless,
    Our dearest faith, our ghastliest doubt;
    He, They, One, All, within, without,
    The power in darkness whom we guess-

    I found Him not in world or sun
    Or eagle's wing, or insect  eye
    Nor through the questions men may try
    The petty cobwebs we have spun.

    If e’eer when faith had fallen asleep
    I heard a voice ‘believe no more,’
    And heard an ever-breaking shore
    That tumble din the godless deep,

    A warmth within the breast would melt
    The freezing reason’s colder part,
    And like a man in wrath the heart
    Stood up and answers, ‘ I have felt.’

    No, like a child in doubt and fear:
    But that blind clamor made me wise;
    Then was I as a child that cries,
    But crying knows his father near;

    And what I am beheld again
    What is, and no man understands;
    And out of darkness came the hands
    That reach through nature, molding men.


Comment
Re: Book Club Discussion: Doubt as a Necessary Element of Faith
Reply #1 on : Thu May 22, 2008, 19:35:03
I really enjoyed your post, Rachel, and I thought I'd mention some random thoughts I had while reading it.

I was glad you passed on Rollins' image of doubt as friction within faith. I've long since come to the realization that my doubt isn't a Pilgrim's Progress-esque phase on my spiritual journey, but rather something that will always be with me, and I find this image helpful.

Rollins' comment on genuine faith acting not on a fear of hell or desire for heaven reminded me of a famous story about the Muslim mystic Rabia. She is said to have walked through her village, torch in one hand, bucket of water in the other. When the villagers asked why she carried these items, she replied that the water was to extinguish the fires of hell and the torch to kindle the expanse of paradise, so that people would worship God for love of him only, not for fear of hell or desire for heaven.

I also had a little thought about certainty. There are as many types of certainty as there are doubt, and I don't think you can call all certainty false and/or naive (not that you were doing so) any more than you can call all doubt sinful. Despite being a habitual doubting Thomas, I've come to believe that there are people gifted with a certainty in their faith that I will probably never have. It isn't an immature certainty, or a naive, false, or belligerant certainty, just a quiet voice inside them that says "this is so" with enough conviction that they feel no necessity to question it. For whatever reason, God leads us all on different spiritual journeys, and I think the doubt and the certainty that characterize the faith walks of different people can strengthen (or weaken) both the church and the individual.

Thanks again for a great post.
Comment
Doubt...
Reply #2 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 02:34:30
I like Rollins. He's got this evangelical discovers mysticism thing going on. But think he gets it wrong when he casts all of "modern" faith as something that balks at doubt. Paul Tillich in Dynamics of Faith and Frederick Buechner in The Hungering Dark have spoken earlier, and often more eloquently, than Rollins on this subject. I'm a little suspicious of anyone who sets up dualisms like Rollins does regarding modernism.

Tillich says that doubt comes from the finite being always unable to reach the infinite. But the bridge that reaches across that divide isn't faith: it is courage.

Have you ever read James Fowler's Stages of Faith? It's an enlightening read about doubt in the process of the faith journey. It has helped me immensely to be understanding of others at different stages in their journeys.
Mitch
Comment
Doubt About What? Faith In Who?
Reply #3 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 05:39:01
I would like to make several points for what they are worth:

1. I do not like the choice being framed as certainty about all things or doubt about all things. It is intellectually dishonest to claim certainty about all things for that is to claim to be God. . . which is also blasphemy. However it is just as dishonest to claim truth can not be known with certainty by anyone. That also is to make an absolute claim of certainty. The only way anyone could KNOW that NO ONE can know truth is if that someone knows everyone and everything, again only God fits that profile. . . thus it is also a blasphemous claim. I believe that there is room for a true agnostic to seek truth while doubting but that person in order to be honest, must recognize that truth might be knowable (it's a possibility). This the only honest agnosticism. Those who claim truth can not be know are left with the circular reasoning that "the only thing I know is that I can't know anything".

2. Not the Pharisees (nor anyone in the Bible for that matter) were ever condemned for believing with certainty. Instead, both the Pharisees and many others in the Bible were condemned for believing the WRONG things. Throughout the Bible people are condemned for believing and acting on wrong things, usually instead of what God had clearly revealed, never for just believing something was true with certainty.

3. Doubting what you believe about God CAN (and I believe many times does)lead to doubting God. However, it depends on the issue . . . doubting that you know exactly how God will orchestrate the end times (eschatology) is likely a pretty healthy doubt. Doubting that God is holy or sovereign is just dumb and costly and reveals a doubt in God, His revelation of Himself, and His very nature and essence(the examples of this in the Bible are too numerous to list). Doubting your understanding of how to be a faithful Christian in your culture can lead to a teachable attitude toward the Holy Spirit's leading. Doubting the Gospel (I mean penal substitutionary atonement) is to doubt that God is who He claims to be and has done what He said He did. The emergents are playing with fire by doubting what God has clearly revealed about Himself in the Bible as well as in all of nature and history, which the Holy Spirit also always affirms.

4. Certainty about what God has said is certain IS FAITHFUL CHRISTIANITY, not arrogance or idolatry. Certainty about the revealed character and work of God is a sign of faith in God as creator, sustainer, and ultimate communicator in and of this universe. The faith is in God, not my ability to understand. My faith is that God can overcome through His Spirit my sin-cursed nature by revealing truth (not fully but truly) to me.

Being certain that God could not communicate in a way we can understand is I believe arrogant and idolatrous for it denies the revealed (in the Bible, creation, and history) nature of a good God in favor of my own ideas. I become more important in my own thinking than what God said is reality . . . that is a dangerous place to be.

5. I'd like to know which Bible verses praise men for doubting God's character and work or even hint that it is the virtue that the "postmodern" generation claims it is.
krsiten
Comment
on the pharisees and me
Reply #4 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 11:50:50
the pharisees, it is true, did choose to believe the wrong thing--they believed that Jesus was not their messiah. they studied and prayed over some of the same text that we use to know God better. they were certain about what that text revealed about the character and work of God and what He said would be done. they were certain of sovreignty. they were certain that God had clearly told them what sort of redemption to expect. they were so certain in their belief in what they knew of God from the Word, that they missed Jesus standing right in front of them.

the disciples, however, had just enough doubt, not that God had been revealed in what we now call the old testament, but they doubted that an earthly king would save them from the romans. they had the doubt that led them to faith in Christ.

the thing is that hindsight can be 20/20. the old testament could certainly be interpreted to mean that God was going to send the messiah the pharisees looked for. mitch was right in that they were certain of the wrong thing. but, until the life, crucifiction, and ressurection of Christ, there was no way to prove they were wrong. the helpful sort of doubt recognizes that there are some things, some details of the faith, that we (both the Church as a group and as individuals) can get wrong. we just can't be certain of which ones they are (again, some of them; it does indeed depend on the issue, i think). that is why the distinction between doubting what one believes about God and doubting God proves so important.

i also want to agree with what laurie has said about certainty. i too think that some (like our friend mitch perhaps?) have been gifted with a certainty that i just don't have. i could and did fake that certainty for a while but it just exhausted me--and, moreover, it felt like a lie. after much prayer and study i came to believe that perhaps the faith that the Spirit has given to me is just different because part of my purpose may be different. it was the only reconciliation for me because, with all of my doubts about certain things, i could not abandon certain fundamentals. this belief about faith and certainty is one that i hold to lightly; i try to be open to change. i don't think that doubt is a virtue at all; i think it is an honest part of who i am as a believer in and follower of Christ.
Chris
Comment
Re: Book Club Discussion: Doubt as a Necessary Element of Faith
Reply #5 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 16:07:13
Awesome! Rachel and I were just talking about this last night. In fact, we said pretty much the same thing. To doubt what we've been taught about God is not at all equivalent to doubting God.

@Mitch. One question for now: How many doctrinal teachings must we be certain about to be in good standing with God?
Laurie
Comment
Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Reply #6 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 19:29:12
Mitch,

I was a little perturbed by your equation of the Gospel with penal substitutionary atonement since, if I'm right, that particular articulation of the gospel post-dated Christ and the writing of the scriptures by at least a thousand years. I would say the Gospel at its most essential is that the work of Christ saves us, and I would say that doubting that is a much different thing than doubting a particular doctrinal articulation about HOW Christ saves us. Would you agree with that?
Mitch
Comment
Re: Book Club Discussion: Doubt as a Necessary Element of Faith
Reply #7 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 19:51:39
Kristen,

I agree that the Pharisees knew the OT Canon quite well and still missed Jesus. It does stand as a warning to us not to think that just knowing what the Bible says is not enough. Jesus makes clear that the Pharisees will face a greater judgment because they had the Word of God in both writing and in person and still rebelled against God. That does not mean that the truth was not communicated or can not be known. We must read and study the Bible to know what God said but not stop with factual knowledge. The Holy Spirit then applies those facts, working together with the Bible, to convict us of sin, encourage us, and guide us to living the magnifies the person of Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel. This also distinguishes us from the demons who also believe in God and know what He has said but have rejected submitting to His authority.

I would also add that the disciples DID believe that Jesus was going to set up his earthly kingdom then. They did believe that He would crush Rome. Thus the tremendous shock when He told them that He would die and Peter's response that this would never happen. Jesus then rebuked him with, "Get behind me Satan!"

Chris,

I'm not fully sure what you mean by "good standing" so I'll answer the best I can. I think the Bible is very clear what puts us positionally in right standing with God as His children, THE GOSPEL.

1. We must believe the revealed character of God -- he is loving, gracious, merciful, holy, perfect, and angry with sin and sinners in rebellion against Him. These are all clearly and repeatedly taught in the Bible and have been the orthodox teaching of the church (cross-denomination) from its inception.

2. We must believe that we are incapable of meeting the revealed standard of perfection that is necessary to be in good positions with a perfect, holy, good God. We must understand as Paul said, that all our righteousness is as filthy rages (the historic background of this statement is not pretty).

3. We must rely, trust, believe (not just intellectualy, but holistically) that Jesus payment to God on our behalf on the cross has bridged the gap between our inability and the perfection of the nature and character of God.

Again, according to the Bible this is the Gospel and is the only thing necessary to become adopted into a right standing with God.

I would add that in a conditional sense, we must yield moment by moment to the Holy Spirit's guidance in order to display by our lives that what we believe is true and transforming. I believe the divorce in the American church between belief and action has in large part led to the emergent backlash. Though this is a bit of a stereotype, I'll say it anyway. The church in the US has fought the secular modernists about right belief for decades now and in the process has had increasingly less and less to say about living out the Gospel in our daily lives and decisions. Now the emergents are throwing out right belief completely and saying all that matters is how you live, your behavior. I don't believe either are biblical and gratefully was raised in a family where my parents patterned for me what it looks like to hold tightly to belief while living it out in daily life. They also taught it to the next generation (me and my siblings) because we saw the connection in their lives and in the Bible. My parents payed a price at times for this is counter-cultural in both the secular world and in most church cultures.

Anyway, I've rambled from Chris' question. The Gospel, which should lead to right living as an expression of the love of God so lavishly poured out for me. Doctrine is not a dirty word to me, it just means the teachings of the Bible. Disagreements over doctrine are overlooked regularly in peripheral issues among Christ followers. But the issue of the Gospel and our certainty of it is an eternal issue that is the foundation and definition of Christian. The Bible is how we know it, thus I strongly oppose the current movement to remove it from its place of primacy in Christianity.
Mitch
Comment
Re: Book Club Discussion: Doubt as a Necessary Element of Faith
Reply #8 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 20:09:53
Laurie,

I just saw your post . . . I don't know when the phrasing, "penal substitutionary atonement" was first used. I do know that long before Jesus came, the teaching was insisted upon by God. A few examples . . .

Adam & Eve sinned, God had them kill an animal to cover themselves with it's skins

Abraham was told by God to offer Isaac on the alter, God provided a lamb to die in his place.

To avoid God's judgment on those that did not believe His message through Moses, the people were supposed to kill a lamb and wipe its blood on their doorposts as a covering that would protect them from judgment.

The entirety of the levitical law dealt with animals being killed in place of the people who had sinned as a way to temporarily make things right with God.

Isaiah 53 is very clear that the promised one, the Messiah, the Christ would take our sins, griefs, sorrows, and suffer in our place as a lambe being slaughtered.

John saw Jesus in John 1 and exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"

All of the OT examples of penal substitutionary atonement were temporary which is why the sacrifices were repeated. They were also clear pictures of the great sacrifice that was coming in the person of Jesus. One the cross he declared, "It is finished". No other sacrifice could deal with our sins. Jesus paid it all. Thus the curtain in the temple that seperated the Holy of Holies was ripped to demonstrate that the seperation between God and man now had a remedy through the perfect life and death of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews makes this connection very clear as it was written to Jewish believers. Check out Hebrews 9 for a perfectly clear articulation of penal substitutionary atonement.

Perhaps a bit of overkill to your question . . . sorry. :)
Chris
Comment
@Mitch
Reply #9 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 22:22:37
At the risk of appearing deprecative, I would like to point out that what you espouse as the "gospel" is more accurately a mere interpretation of the words of the Gospels. One interpretation among many, I would add. So my question changes only slightly:

Whose interpretation of doctrinal teachings must we be certain about to be in good standing with God?

Would you not agree that a Mormon's understanding of the gospel is different from that of a Pentecostal? To point to the "gospel" as a necessary belief is to beg the question I have just revised. And to invoke the Holy Spirit as interpreter only obfuscates the issue. Mormons, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Adventists all claim to possess the proper understanding of scripture as validated by the "inner working" of the Holy Spirit.

If I may shed a little postmodern light on your second point, I would like to point out that your example of "filthy rags" serves as an excellent case study in the potential and, in my opinion, necessary loss of meaning when an experience is translated mentally into a conception which, in turn, is translated again into words, and finally, as in our case, is again translated across culture, time period, and language. While I believe the notion conveyed by Isaiah (not Paul, incidentally) can be approximated by instruction, we must keep in mind that to simply read the passage in question leaves us wanting of the original, bloody picture. There is no good reason to expect that this loss of meaning is not present in every other passage of scripture.

I'm not saying that scripture is meaningless, but I am saying that, as a text, it has its limits. Limits which a communal interpretation seeks to supplement. The interpretation, then, and not the words themselves, become not only the most important part of our faith dialogue, but the only significant part of our faith dialogue.

On this ground alone, I consider it imprudent to point to this or that doctrine as a "foundational" belief.

As a short answer to my question, I would pose that it is the person of Christ and the person of God that is the source and goal of our religion. Never do words a Christian make. Because God is spirit, I have difficulty accepting that sensory phenomena (ie. reading or listening) can accurately present us with the ability to be connected to God in a non-sensory capacity.

I conclude with this shameless plug. As a burgeoning Catholic, I see in the celebration of the Eucharist not only a symbol but a true vehicle for communing with God. A relational experience unmatched by any sermon or book or passage of scripture. In the taking of the body and blood, the words of the Mass become incidental. I commune with God through the elements in a non-sensory manner.
Comment
@Chris
Reply #10 on : Fri May 23, 2008, 23:27:14
I just wanted to say that I love the fact that you used the word "obfuscate" in your comment. You officially win the prize for best vocabulary of the day.
Mitch
Comment
What About the Scripture???
Reply #11 on : Sat May 24, 2008, 01:47:24
Chris,

The irony of your comments is striking. . . allow me to recap what just happened.

1. You ask me how many doctrines we must be certain of to be in good standing with God.

2. I assume you don't really want a number as an answer so I respond by pointing you to the Bible stories and passages that outline my answer which is simply, the Gospel.

3. You respond to almost none of the examples I raise and instead argue that ANY RESPONSE I give is not good enough since it's my own interpretation of language (thanks for setting me up). You claim I only tell an interpretation and then act as if that's somehow overwhelming evidence that I'm wrong (this is a textbook logical fallacy).

4. HERE'S THE CLINCHER -- you use very articulate language to express the idea that language has no understandable meaning. You hardly address the words of the Bible I raise because you are arguing against the foundational view of language that makes the Bible (or this blog) meaningful in the first place. Then you state, "I'm not saying that scripture is meaningless, but I am saying that, as a text, it has its limits". This seems like a weak attempt to hold onto the tradition of the Bible while you in fact render it meaningless.

Everyone knows that texts have limits. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THEY DON'T. I'm not arguing that the Bible reveals everything, only that what it says is true. If you want to deny these passages in the Bible then do so. If you don't, then deal with the passages I've raised, but don't patronize me by playing games with words and interpretations while you reveal by your own actions (i.e. writing on a blog) that you DO BELIEVE THAT WORDS MATTER AND CAN COMMUNICATE.

You claim that the person of God and Christ are the source and goal of our faith. . . how do you even know that IF NOT FOR THE BIBLE? What is this God like? How do you know Jesus wasn't a fraud? How do you even know that Jesus wasn't an evil demon? How do you know God is loving? How do you know anything? Or do you merely deconstruct others beliefs? Is mystical experience the only way you learn about God?

I enjoy relationally knowing God and experiencing Him. I just choose to ground that experience and relationship in the truth He has revealed in His word, confirmed by His Spirit.

It is clear to me that I have wasted my time trying to give an honest answer to a question that I took in good faith. You can believe anything you want, but don't expect me to accept your nonsense about language and interpretation when you clearly don't even believe it.

Welcome to the postmodern emergent mystic church that uses language to argue that language doesn't matter, is certain that certainty doesn't exist, and denies the fundamentals of who God is while claiming that God is all that matters. We live in a wierd world.
Comment
chesterton
Reply #12 on : Mon May 26, 2008, 00:40:50
i'm very late to the party, it would seem.

i enjoyed the post, rachel. in large part, if not entirely, i would agree. at times i might even go further to say that doubt should be cultivated, as well as the perseverance to push through to the end. battling through doubt produces strength. doubt is the broken bone. and the stronger faith that results is the pesky calcium deposit that forms when it heals, more solid than before.

chesterton's orthodoxy has a chapter that i'm sure you remember - "the maniac" - where he describes mathematicians as those who lose their grip on reality for having pressed their square logic into the round holes of the world. the artists, however, are the ones whose feet are firmly planted on the realization that things are not as they seem.

if you doubt your footing, you're more likely to find it. it's generally when you feel most firm that you fall.
Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 10:52:07 by admin  

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code