The Necessity of Faith & Strength from Doubt

I have to be very honest with you about some things and I believe this honesty may surprise some and possibly make other uncomfortable. I do not mean to intend the latter, but I can't see how this can be done without initially doing some boat rocking. Of course, I never intend to shake anyone without it first having shaken me, and only to the extent that it's worthwhile. Before that, I hope you can bear with me for the next few paragraphs so that I can at least set up some definitions that will help me in explaining the concepts of this note.

Faith is trust in someone or something. Belief is an assenting to a knowledge claim about reality. Reality is an actual state of affairs. A justified true belief is something that you not only believe about reality, but have good reasons for believing it to be true. This last definition is a bit tricky because you can accidentally be right about something, and although you would be right, your belief would not be justified. You accidentally got it right, despite your reasons. So, there have been theories proposed in terms of justified true beliefs that speak about things like defeaters, which are possible explanations to refute the belief held. There are even defeaters for defeaters, if that makes sense.

What justified a belief? Are beliefs and faith isolated to just religious life?

Before delving into these questions, let me set up the critical side of isle. Skepticism can mean two things. In the general sense, it can mean someone who critically examines things and arrives at doubt and inconclusiveness. A narrower meaning would represent a school of philosophy that rejects the ability to either know anything, know with certainty or to know anything outside of what you perceive with the senses. The latter form is more prevalent and is sometimes referred to as verificationalism...the idea that you can't know anything unless that knowledge was gained through your five senses. Of course, the skeptic will have no use for faith or beliefs. However, upon closer scrutiny, you find the skeptic's definition of faith and belief are mainly relegated to religious speculation. As such, they are considered unwarranted in terms of actual knowledge with their usefuleness being merely therapeutic or to produce a desired outcome. But the content of faith or beliefs would be non-cognitive, or in other words, not something knowable about reality.

When it comes to belief in God, there are three broad schools in Christian circles and one broad school in skepticism, with many different flavors. In Christian circles, some say belief in God is rational and based on evidentiary arguments. This school of thinking got its traction during the Enlightenment. In other Christian circles, some say belief in God is necessarily irrational and groundless, despite belief. This school, too, can trace its birth to the Enlightenment and shortly thereafter. You can have both non-Christians and Christians (used in a very broad sense) in this same category. Both would believe that assent to things like God, Jesus and the Bible are irrational to hold, and they would part ways as to whether or not it was ok to be irrational in believing those things. The Christian skeptic would believe you can and the non-Christian skeptic would think it assinine. I tend to side with the non-Christian skeptic, when comparing the two together.

The third school is called Reformed Epistemology and proposes that belief in God, as well as other certain things, is properly basic. That is, these beliefs are immediate and not grounded in any evidence or arguments and no arguments are required to hold it. These beliefs, held by properly functioning minds with the natural inclination towards the truth, are basically held and such beliefs are natural. Reformed Epistemology says that there are things you know that are basic and do not require argumentation or criteria in order to hold. One of them is a belief in God. They believe that although Christianity is rational and there are great arguments to support Christian beliefs, none of them are necessary.

Needless to say, although there are both Christian and non-Christian evidentialists, there are only Christian Reformed Epistemologists. That's because the idea of basically proper beliefs runs contrary to foundational evidential or skeptical beliefs (there's that word again). Since it would appear that Reformed Epistemology is sort of the step child in mainstream circles, does that mean it's the least plausible explanation for knowledge, particularly as it relates to faith and God? No. In fact, I think it is by far the most persuasive. If you were honest, regardless of which side of the fence you were on, you would admit to it as well. There is a avalanche of knowledge claims we simply accept and use to support other knowledge claims. For example, I am typing this sentence. I need no supporting arguments to know this. It's properly basic. Whether or not you believe belief in God is properly basic is another debate. The purpose of this note isn't to dwell into that debate as much as sort of clarify the use of faith and belief in every-day life. In this regard, Reformed Epistemology or Classical Common Sense is the best explanation for what we know.

As belief pertains to arguing the existence of God or the non-existence of God, I have read tons of Christian apologetics (defense of the faith). I have also read tons of atheistic works. There's good and bad among both. The negative tendency in Christian apologetics is to be pedantic and dogmatic, without getting into the actual muck of real life. The negative tendency in atheistic works is that a great majority of them are more passionately and pejoratively driven against theism and Christianity, rather than presenting valid reasons of their own. There are exceptions, such as the late J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. But for the most part, they are emotional and angry.

Here's the honesty. There are rational arguments for atheism. There are also irrational aspects of Christianity. I realize that's a hard pill to swallow, but its true. And there is no final arbiter found in argumentation, even though it can aid or support a belief one way or the other. In the end, everyone, Christian and atheist, requires faith and belief in order to continue living, all fueled by the will. And that very will or internal decider will color and skew all arguments, evidence and support to better fit what you have already committed to believe. It isn't fatalism. You can change your mind. I have. But normally it will not happen until something tragic happens to you. And that's because we build up scaffolding of diversions to keep us safe from delving too deeply into things we may have even contemplated as being inadequate in our minds, but would never voice to others. Reality is what it is, despite what we think about it. But because of our will's involvement in gaining and supporting knowledge, we all have the tendency to cheerlead our position and avoid dealing with its difficulties.

Regarding rational atheism, if you reject the supernatural and the existence of God, for example, the theories that are prevalent are somewhat reasonable, especially since matter, time, energy and space are all you begin with. The concept of evolution and abiogenesis has an internal consistency and rational explanation for all that we see. On the other hand, there is nothing obvious about understanding the Trinity of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or the idea that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. There simply are no arguments to either prove those things or make them seem obvious. They are difficult to explain. On the other hand, the concept of consciousness, morality and the design of nature make a mechanical and material explanation of reality seem very underwhelming, to say the least. If you are an atheist, belief in God is considered either cultural or psychological survivalist instincts, at best and folk mythology, at worst. If you are a Christian, atheism is considered rebellion against God despite evidence, an inability to recognize Him through the noetic impact of sin or a combination of both.



Despite the difficulties of certain theological doctrines, can I still say that belief in God is properly basic? Yes. Although those doctrines are considered essential, they are not essential in explaining belief in God. Because these doctrines are difficult, it doesn't make them false. Understanding the detailed creeds with about those doctrines aren't necessary to know before believing God. In fact, you believe in God and through that belief, you come to believe the other things that are not basic. In atheism, the refusal to believe in God doesn't require you to understand evolutionary biology before you hold to that belief. And being a Christian, I believe in God, believe it's rational and know Him to be real. Contrary to evidential arguments, I think the hardest stumbling block for many atheists aren't the arguments, but the lives they see. I realize that many of the more virulent atheists like to paint us as all horrible, backward and dangerous people, but the truth of the matter, in real life, is that those not in the lime light, who love the Lord, are themselves a very formidable argument that atheists have a hard time dealing with.

I bring all this up to show that regardless of where you come, there are some things we must come to grips. First, we do not have the option of certainty. Knowledge doesn't require it and since our reasoning abilities as well as our senses are limited, it's not available to us. Second, we all, whether religious or non-religious, operate daily through faith and belief. You use it every time you sit in a chair or turn on a light switch. In fact, because certainty is outside of our reach, faith and beliefs are requirements to keep on moving, anyway. The Christian is mistaken (sorely mistaken) if he or she believes God can be proven with certainty or that all the verities of the faith are obviously factual. The atheist is mistaken (sorely mistaken) for the same things, except in rejecting God or in defending alternative explanations through science, philosophy or just ranting. We are all shut up in a reality that we simply cannot know apart from faith. Faith is a prerequisite for knowledge.

But the skeptic (or perhaps even some Christians) may argue that things self-evident, incorrigible or sense perceived, require no faith whatsoever. It falls on the concept called the Verification Principle, which states that the only knowledge gained is that perceived with the senses. Anything that is claimed to be knowledge that cannot be perceived by the senses, doesn't count as real knowledge. But there are two really basic things wrong with this. The first one is a bit nerdy and the second one is undeniable. The nerdy objection is the obvious fact that the theory itself cannot be obtained through the senses. There’s no way we can empirically verify the verification principle. It's very difficult to seriously consider a theory that cannot stand under its own first principles. The undeniable objection is that there are, in fact, many things you know that could never be observed with the five senses. For example, when you are angry, you don't perceive this through your senses. Recognizing a moral value or an aesthetic value, although could be recognized through something seen or heard, are not known by the senses.

Another objection would be that faith is separate from knowledge because knowledge is based on criteria. In other words, if it fits a certain criteria, then it counts as knowledge, such as whether or not it is sense perceived, externally verifiable or internally consistent. Those things may be true with certain knowledge claims, but there is a problem with this theory. It's like a dog eating its tail. It ends up in a vicious regressive circle. Here's what I mean. If knowledge requires criteria before it can be known, then the criteria is itself a knowledge claim, which also requires criteria for it. And the criteria for those criteria of knowledge are knowledge that requires further criteria for its justification. This goes on ad infinitum. So, although this objection may initially make sense, once you push it to its logical conclusion, it is no explanation for knowledge.

In addition to the requirement of faith in terms of knowledge, we can also turn the skeptic's exacta knife inside out and look at this another way. Instead of having to prove you know what you know, the real question is are there any good or sufficient reasons to doubt what you believe? Absent these reasons, the skeptic is left with either iterative and repetitious questioning ("How do you know? Well, how do you know that? How do you know?", etc). or trying to convince you that so long as there is even the possibility you could be wrong, you should doubt your belief. Neither of those methods is very good nor can be taken seriously. Unless and until you are presented with reasons to doubt the belief you have, you are within your rights to continue holding to that belief.

Do I believe in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord and Savior? Yes. Is it possible that I could be mistaken? Yes, I could. But the possibility of being mistaken is different from reasons to doubt my being mistaken. Not only that, although I could possibly be mistaken, I do not believe that I am and I even know that I am not. Knowledge doesn't require 100% certainty nor does it require proof in order to hold it. Otherwise, not only is skepticism the only game in town, even skepticism itself falls by the same sword, which also leads you into a brain burner. Knowing that you know nothing is to know something.

There is great importance for a intellectual and spiritual honesty. Traditionally, we have buried doubt, made doubt a taboo subject and even scorned any believer of standing that would voice such doubts. What we have done is bought into the enlightenment bologna that certainty is required and evidence is our foundation for faith. Both are false. In fact, we have doubts. We all know it. It's the white elephant in the room. But we need not treat doubt as the boogie man. Our doubts can be the tools we use to strengthen our knowledge and faith. Instead of making sure no one ever questions the essentials of the faith, the hypostatic union of Jesus' incarnation, the problem of evil or any difficult topic, we need honesty. We need to bring our doubts out and place them on the table, before each other, in a non-condemning and non-judgmental way. By doing so, we accomplish two major things. First, we can now actually grow in our faith and knowledge of Christ, rather than pretend to and then manage that facade. Second, we can actually tap into the power of the Gospel in ways restoring the church to its original intent, rather than the stoic, boring, legalistic and hurtful thing it unfortunately has become in many cases.

From an evangelical standpoint, there's another set of questions. How can I present the Gospel to you or give you reasons for the hope I have, if you don't believe? Is it possible? If it weren't, then the New Testament is a false document and all personal testimony outside of it is false. But how many other things do you believe as an atheist or a skeptic that sets the bar that high in order for you to accept it? If it's because God isn't empirically visible to you, then why do you believe anything that is beyond empirical observation? If it's because you have never personally experienced anything of the supernatural, have you ever experienced abiogenesis or the morphing of one animal into another? I know you believe it, but have you seen it? No? Then what is it? Surely, if you were honest, Christianity isn't irrational. There are great arguments for the Gospel, in all kinds of forms. There are also some very intelligent Christians. In fact, many of them are far above par, intellectually, despite the bad press. If I can open up with you and admit that there are great atheistic arguments, that some of them are rational and persuasive, that many atheists are very intelligent and even far more so than myself, will you believe me?

And if you do, can we really talk? Not this rhetorical ping pong tournament we normally engage in, but real conversation...honest and open conversation. I hope so. It's my fervent prayer, even if that makes you uncomfortable for me to suggest. I can't change my beliefs to avoid discomfort for you. All I can do is be willing to be wrong, make a friend, and in the worst case, agree to disagree without being so damn disagreeable. On the other hand, my struggles with doubt, confusion, tragedy and searching have actually confirmed my beliefs and I really have no problem defending them, if need be. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't believe I am. In fact, I know I'm not. Now, if you know otherwise, contrary to the spirit of the age, I'd actually to know what those reasons are...if you cared enough to let me know as I care enough to let you know, you would strive to persuade me as much as I do you. Otherwise, it's all an ego trip and we're both trying to impress others and manage our appearances. I have to tell you, I am not the least bit interested in that anymore. It's a waste of time.

Christianity With Hardly Signs of Life

It doesn't take long to read any of the four Gospels and notice something that sticks out. People were almost violent to get to Him. Huge crowds made their way wherever He went, especially when He intentionally strayed from well populated areas. Take the cripple who couldn't get into the home where Jesus was staying. His friends boosted him to the roof and clawed through to create a hole large enough to lower the man down on a mat. Even Jesus Himself stated that people were forcing their way into the Kingdom.

Now, if you live in America or the west in general, look around, particularly in the churches. Where are the throngs of people violently trying to make their way in? When's the last time you even heard of someone clawing through the roof of the First Baptist Church to get inside to hear the Good News and be restored?

What we normally see are churches that pop up, grow, stabilize and then decline, split like a zygote and turn into either a wedding chapel or a pizza joint. We get excited about numbers, baptisms, enrollment, new ministries, a stray Christian movie or two. Not that any of these things are necessarily bad or not to be celebrated, but when you compare that with throngs of people bursting through the door and clawing their way through the ceiling, these things seem mundane and devoid of any vibrancy. Do you really anticipate seeing vagrants and invalids busting down the door to get into the church that has begun to study John Piper's Desiring God series or has a seminary president come speak as the guest preacher? Again, don't misconstrue (as we Christians love to do with the uncomfortable or unfamiliar), I like Piper and if Danny Aken came to speak at our church, I would go, but not to the point to where I would claw through the walls to get in. Seriously, not even close.

So what happened to us? After all, Jesus left us with the promise that in His Name we would do far more and the Kingdom would manifest itself and grow like yeast working itself through a lump of dough. But instead, we re-invent ourselves, over and over again, with little difference. We run campaigns and do new ministries, which are ironically a lot like the prior ones, except with new hair or "dude" thrown in for good measure, to attract the younger demographic. Oh, of course we do have the snake oil salesmen and saleswomen that do talk about the Kingdom manifesting itself, but when you listen, it turns out to be about nothing more than money, a raise, a new car or super-human health, which triggers the gag reflexes. None of this is the Kingdom I read in the Gospels. It simple isn't even close. And that is what I long for. But I can't even begin to be anything but depressed unless I sort of try to figure out how our fire got put out. I do see us growing and rapidly, but it’s not here. It seems to be almost everywhere except here. I have been to Africa and got a taste of what I see in the Gospels. I have heard missionaries talk of outpourings, huge numbers of conversions, Mosques turned into churches in the most dangerous places a professing follower of Christ can live. But here, where Christianity is legal and a church on almost every street corner, the vibrancy isn't there, outside of it being contrived.

I have a few ideas why we are in this sad shape and I also have to admit that these ideas are far from original. In fact, much of it I originally heard from my own pastor and after reading Scripture in that light, I was 'ruined' so to speak. Once you see truth, you simply can't unsee it, no matter how hard you try. And I believe that if we could at least confess of our deadness and understand where it comes from; maybe we can see the same vibrancy of His Kingdom that is rampant all over other parts of the world.

First of all, I think we are far too Greek in our knowledge than Hebrew. When a Hebrew talks about knowledge, it is understood to be both cognitive AND something you actually live out. The Greeks loved the cognitive aspect of knowledge, but fell short of it having much to do with daily life. The Romans had little use for speculation and were all about the practical. But instead of having a bunch of cognitive knowledge that didn't touch life, they ended up retrofitting knowledge claims to fit the life they already considered desirable. In other words, the Greeks liked to understand concepts and didn't care if it was something to be lived out while the Romans started with a life they considered virtuous and retrofitted all knowledge to fit that lifestyle. Both end in sad results.

When Jesus talks about knowing, it is ALWAYS in the context of both understanding and living out. And once lived out, only then is it fully understood.

If there is anything in this note I wish you to walk away with and never forget it is the last two sentences above.

Propositional truth is something you initially comprehend, then you live out in the warp and woof of life, and only then you truly understand it, know it, own it. It involves all of you, mind, body, spirit and social context. So, being an intentional follower of Christ yet unintentionally Greek or Roman in our thinking, we as evangelical Bible-believing Christians either stay up in the lofty vestibule of doctrinal truths, out of touch with real life, or we cling to the familiar, the traditional, and retrofit doctrine to fit it. And both lead to deadness, even if the numbers increase. And that's because unless you handle the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ, it has a shelf life and by looking at a lot of churches these days, the expiration date is long past due. It's the reason why we are hypocrites to the watching world (of course, all are hypocrites, but that's another topic) and it’s the reason why all our Christian talk has long since lost its relevance with daily life. It's not that the things referenced in our language are irrelevant, but that in our shallow understanding of these things, we cling to language to get out our sentences and to stay on topic, even if it is powerless. And the reason our understanding of Scripture is shallow is because we focus on only cognitive understanding, at best, or retrofitting doctrine to fit our familiarity, at worst. And in either case, no one listens, cares or bothers.

That should convict us. I know it does me.

When you see people in the church try to split it up or run off a pastor or other members, in almost every case, these people could quote you Scripture frontwards and backwards, even though it would defy their behavior. And what I described above is the best thing I can come up with to explain their actions. They cognitively know Scripture, but they are ignorant of it, because they've never bothered actually living it out to do, as Jesus commanded, find out if His teachings are from God or only from human understanding. Some of the meanest people I have met know their Scripture and can quote it on demand. But listening to what they quote seems hopelessly disconnected from their actual lives. How about loving God with all you are and loving your neighbor? What we usually see are churches that focus on the other, treat other people like hell and call it love, or we see churches that ignore the first, contrive the second and make sure everyone sees it. And in spiritual realms, these actions are like hackings, impalings and buckshot wounds through the souls of lives, all over REAL important things, such as musical instruments, PowerPoint aids, popular controversies or devolving into nothing more than a glorified political movement.

So, what can we do? It seems the obvious thing is to do more than study Scripture. We should actually start trying out Scriptural truths in our lives, starting today. I think by doing so, two things will emerge. First, we will discover that Jesus' teachings are from God, rather than human ingenuity. Second, we will see just how enslaved we have been to our vested self and petty interests, as well as how we have trained our mind, body, soul and social context to serve those interests, rather than to serve others for the sake of the Kingdom. Since I began to try putting these teachings in place in my life, I have discovered both of those things. I have also discovered other things, like certain emotional triggers that used to control my words, actions and my general outlook. And although those triggers are still there, I can separate myself from them, captivate them and try to bring them under the dominion of Christ's truth. All of the sudden, Scripture is more than a suit, shiny shoes and a program. It is a living, vibrant and exciting life, far more exciting than I thought it could be.

For those of you, who, like me, could interpret a sort of legalistic bondage in anything I wrote, let me try to defuse that right now. My walk with Christ REQUIRES I deal with failure. Failure is a prerequisite for victory. Failure is necessary. Not only are we to not avoid it, we can't avoid it. We have fallen into a weird view where if it involves any participation on our part, we deny grace and consider it something akin to legalistic bondage. Legalism requires enslavement to outcomes. It works through human ingenuity to manage opinions and appearances to that end. Jesus commanded us to obey, but also understood our failures and weaknesses. His atonement on the cross and His resurrection from the dead means failure isn't fatal, even if it is required, if we are to be honest and serious about putting feet to Scripture.

I think if we start thinking differently, understanding the true Gospel of Christ and as a result, understand ourselves better, there is no telling where we go from there. If I can just take Africa and use that as my sole personal experience, I can at least tell you that you have never experienced true amazement, excitement and life drama. He cannot be contained or controlled. In that sense, He's wild and untamable. And when we earnestly become His apprentices in this manner, expect the unexpected....and expect it with the three aspects of His Spirit ...power, love and sanity.