"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." Sir Francis BaconI am addicted to conviction. My mind has a chemical dependency on it. In my search for truth I am constantly tempted to form opinions before I understand issues. I am drawn to people who have simple and strongly-held beliefs. I want so very badly to be right. Much of this desire is pride, but some of it is fear. Not knowing what to believe, not being sure, has an instability to it which scares me.
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." Rene Descartes
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." Andre Gide
By the grace of God, I am better now than I once was. I have learned a life-changing lesson that being right is not a virtue. I have learned more about the world and the people in it, and the more I learn the more I realize Edison was right, we don't know a millionth of one percent about anything. I am less likely than I once was to place my opinion above others', less likely to exclude others for opinions I disagree with.
I have a friend who despises overconfidence. She says, "The more sure you are you're right, the less I want to hear about it." I understand what she means now.
As this transformation occurs, I am perplexed by the inter-working of conviction, doubt, and humility, particularly regarding faith. As my dear friend Winn Collier explored in his first book, Restless Faith, there is no question that God is able to handle our doubt. The Bible is full of folks who doubted God in all sorts of ways, and God still loved them, cared for them, and used them mightily. I doubt God often. I do not condemn others for their doubt. I believe freedom to doubt is a part of the Christian life.
But I can't help admire conviction. I can't help long for it. Here is a passage from a blog post a friend shared with me last week:
When you yourselves struggle with what you believe, it makes you no less people of faith. About nine months after this church got going, someone asked if I would go for a walk because there was something they wanted to talk to me about. We circled City Park as they proceeded to tell me with some hesitation that they didn't have the same theology of baptism than I did. They had different beliefs. After cautiously and painstakingly informing me of this fact, I looked at them and said "I'm so glad you told me because now I know you better. But please don't take it personally when I say … I don’t actually care." I don’t really care what you believe. I care what you hear. Beliefs are fluid and go up and go down. People in this church believe all sorts of stuff. Trust me on that. But we aren't responsible for making sure we have pure doctrine and right belief about everything … we're just responsible for hearing the story and telling the story. That’s what we do as the church.I felt deeply conflicted when I read this. I still do. The first line is so true; the Christian life is struggle, whether it's loving your neighbor or finding the truth. But to say "I don't care what you believe?" Certainly I couldn't care less about someone's beliefs about baptism, but surely somewhere, at some point, beliefs must matter. Without belief, of what consequence is this story we must tell as a church? The post this passage comes from begins with the story of John the Baptist doubting whether Jesus was "the one who is to come," and encourages the reader to "embrace a doubting faith." I want to yell, "Yes!" but this question keeps nagging me... If we look at the whole of John the Baptist's story, would we categorize him generally as a man of conviction, or a man who embraced a doubting faith? My suspicion is the former.
Come to think of it, doesn't Hebrews equate faith with certainty?
On this point, I am at no loss for great thinkers who agree. Here are a couple of my very favorite paragraphs from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy:
But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert: himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine reason. [..] For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.I am intensely drawn to these words. Here is a blog post from 2005 where I even echoed something similar (much less insightfully and eloquently, of course). Along these lines, how about this viral video which made the rounds in 2010:
At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern skeptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance.
Tempting stuff, isn't it? Well at least it is for me.
Where have I landed in this turmoil between those who challenge us to speak with conviction and those who challenge us to embrace a doubting faith? Well as I said, it's a constant conundrum. The best I have right now is this:
First, have few beliefs. Second, hold these few beliefs dearly, passionately, and with as much conviction as you can muster. Choosing these beliefs is mighty difficult. I know Christ died and was resurrected to free us from sin. I know we must love our neighbor. There are a few others. I used to cast this net wider, but the humility I hope God is teaching me has shrunk it. Thank God for that. For those beliefs which I have given holding up as unquestionable, perhaps the fear I feel at the instability of doubt will move me to rely on him.
Image: uglyagnes

As one of Miska's professors once said, the older I get, the more and more convinced I become of fewer and fewer things. I agree. Good words, Justin.
ReplyDeleteI love that G.K. Chesterton quote, what a refreshing reminder of the confidence we can have in God's truth and the humility we ought to approach it with.
ReplyDeleteAs Winn already said, good words.
Great work Justin, I really enjoyed this. You have posted some really thought provoking stuff lately.
ReplyDeleteThis is good, thought-provoking stuff. Prompted an interesting discussion between Matt and me, and I'm still chewing on some of this. For me, my doubts are a crucial part of my faith, and I'm only recently coming to terms with the fact that my doubts don't make me any less of a Christ-follower. I hesitate to say I "know" anything, even those things that I hold up as my most precious beliefs. I also think the words we use in this discussion (incluging those that come from scripture) can get a bit convoluted; i.e., does "certainty" mean that I am certain something is true, or certain that I hope that something is true? I don't have easy answers to any of it, and (as someone who has always preferred answers to questions), I'm still getting to a point where I'm okay with that.
ReplyDeleteGreat post; it raises important questions, namely the nature of faith and its relation to rationality and especially the form of rationality we call certainty. I think the root of the problem you feel may come from the definition of certainty as "knowledge beyond a doubt" or "empirical verification that something is true." Faith means trusting the church's testimony about Jesus Christ, the Messiah & Son of God; not being able to prove the testimony about Jesus Christ in a lab. The modern form of certainty has little to do w/biblical views of faith, which are more about trust. Once you change the definition of faith from "faith = certainty" to "faith = trust w/out certainty," I think the problem of doubting is no longer a problem but actually a gift--something that faith can use to make itself stronger, since it provokes us to questions about faith. Faith and reason are, according to JP II, like two wings which when used together help us fly higher and deeper into the mystery of the One revealed to Moses (google Fides et Ratio). A faith that seeks/questions/searches for understanding is actually one traditional definition of "theology". Fides quaerens intellectum is "faith seeking an understanding of itself". For me, this view of faith and reason makes possible a genuine form of humility similar to that of the boy in Mark 9:24 that helps me say: "Lord I believe; help my unbelief."
ReplyDeleteWinn - Thanks, what a great quote. What was the professor's name?
ReplyDeleteAustin & Costa - Thanks, dudes.
Carolyn - I'm glad this is stirring some things in you. Thanks for sharing where you are in this. I do think that the certainty in Hebrews refers to certainty itself, not hope for certainty, just as the beginning of the verse talks about being sure of what we hope for, not hoping to be sure. I don't have many answers either, and I am learning to be ok with having less than I want to have, but I do have strong conviction about a few.
mt - Really interesting thoughts, thank you! I'll have to ruminate on that a bit and get back to you.
Man, I agree with Miska's professor. That is totally how I feel and at times it is truly unnerving and quite terrifying. Then I am reminded that all I can do is cling to hope, believe in faith, and love as much as I can.
ReplyDeletemt - Ok, I did some thinking. I think what you said is absolutely true, that there is a difference between being certain about things which can be proven scientifically and being certain about things which cannot (like the resurrection of Jesus or the Napoleonic wars). However, I don't think this is the "root of my problem." In the post, I was trying to set scientific proof aside, and discuss the difference between "a doubting faith" and conviction. I wanted to talk about the importance of being able to say you fundamentally believe that you are right about a few things, even if there is no way to prove them. I feel like there are some folks who are not willing to say this about anything, and some folks who are willing to say it about too many things, and I don't want to be in either position.
ReplyDeleteI believe the prof is George Blake, what a man.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it's become quite chic to doubt, as if doubting itself were now the badge to wear. Rubbish. God calls us to faith, to action, to step out, to know things. I like your refusal to take the easy path offered by both extremes you want to steer clear of. Saying you know everything and saying you know nothing are both the safe, easy way.
As the comments have drifted, though, I would like to add that I believe there is a difference between the emotion of certainty and the faithful assurance in God. Faith and doubts are not always enemies; but faith and disbelief are. In Hebrews 11, faith is the groundwork or the assurance of our hope. In other words, faith is the foundation for our confidence, not confidence the foundation for our faith.
Faith is what we believe that then moves how we act and live. It isn't (necessarily) the abolition of all uncertainty. It is the courage, humility and obedience to act even when we may feel uncertain.
As much as I love G.K. and love most about this quote, doubting myself means I will at times doubt the truth - because I have yet to discover a way to know the truth that bypasses myself. The question, I think, is not whether we feel certain or not but whether we are willing to submit ourselves and even our doubts humbly to God. And obey. Then, doubts and all, I believe we have faith - or perhaps more importantly, have lived faithfully.
Man, Winn. After each sentence of this comment, I think wow, that's so wise and so true, and yet something is still nagging me and I can't put my finger on it.
ReplyDeleteI know there's something about this that bothers me: "In Hebrews 11, faith is the groundwork or the assurance of our hope. In other words, faith is the foundation for our confidence, not confidence the foundation for our faith." I'm just not completely convinced that's what the verse says or means. "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Some translations even say "the conviction of things not seen." It sounds to me that confidence is neither the groundwork for our faith nor faith the groundwork for our confidence; it sounds like faith is confidence itself, in things we hope for which cannot be proven.
But even that doesn't get to the root of what I'm feeling. I think at the heart of it, I feel like there's an acknowledgement here that doubt is actually a part of faith, rather than a part of disbelief. I don't think it is. Yes, God can handle our doubts. Yes, every Christian doubts. But to put faith and doubt together as if they were part and parcel...? What about all of Jesus' admonishments to the disciples to have faith, asking "why do you doubt?"
What is still so attractive about GK's words to me is the way the modern world recoils at them. Modern society demands that anyone who believes something which cannot be scientifically verified admit the possibility that he or she may be wrong, that it is only their view, that is has no consequence for those who do not hold it. If I read GK correctly, he believes faith breaks through this notion, that conviction and belief are noble, honorable, even essential.
I'm not sure any of this even contradicts what you're saying in any way, and I'm not sure it alleviates my nagging feeling either. Ah well. I tried.
Justin, thanks for the post. My only thought, some things seem to be getting separated that are biblically indivisible. I would say - Humility is an encounter with truth, wearing what we believe and adorning the doctrine of God.
ReplyDeleteFor some, it seems the only thing we can know is that we don't know anything - "clever men trying to believe they are fools" (C.S. Lewis). Through His Word, by His Spirit - there is the God we can know. And His grace is relentlessly rewiring His people to make us humble and confident because of Jesus. Not to merely to think less of ourselves, but thinking of ourselves less - blessed self-forgetfulness. But I will not look away from the mirror to look only at doubts, something truer must continually grip my attention and affections that stands on God's faithful commitment to unreliable sinners (I think GK's point).
Long while to get back, but I'm here, busy week. BTW, it would be nice to have a way to be notified when comments follow. This is a great conversation, important things to think about.
ReplyDeleteHebrews 11 is important because the word translated "assurance, conviction" is almost never subjective. It does not refer to a human emotion. Rather, faith is the "substance" or the content, the bedrock by which we can have confidence (what can guide or supersede our emotions). And faith is the means by which we act. Abraham, Enoch, the martyrs - they all acted by faith. Whether or not the martyrs feared as they were fed to the lions that perhaps they were foolish and killing their families for nothing (and surely some thought such things), did not determine whether or not they had faith. They believed what God said, and they acted. They had faith.
Faith allows us to see what we would not see otherwise. It allows us to obey what would seem completely foolish to obey otherwise. Faith and doubt are not all-or-nothing affairs. "I believe, help my unbelief," is a refrain for many of us.
Peterson paraphrases well: "The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living."
To your prime concern (and sorry for such a diatribe on something you aren't that interested in), I'm not saying that doubt is part of the parcel of faith - or part of the parcel of unbelief. I'm saying that what we often label as doubt is an emotion, part of the burden of being a finite human grappling with divine mysteries. It can be part of faith, or it can be part of unbelief. It depends on what we do with it.
If we insist that faith requires the elimination of any mental reservation, any hesitancy, any wondering if perhaps you might have it wrong, I think we have set an impossibly high bar - and one that has more to do with us feeling the safety of absolutism than actual Biblical faith. I remember hearing Dallas Willard talk about the fact of Christian knowledge (we can know things and don't need to cower). Afterwards, someone asked him what he thought about whether we could have "absolute certainty." His answer was quick, "I don't know, you're talking about an emotion."
I'll exit with a snippet from Lesslie Newbigin's Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship:
"Both faith and doubt have their proper roles in the whole enterprise of knowing, but faith is primary and doubt is secondary because rational doubt depends upon beliefs that sustain our doubt. The idea that modernity, following Descrates, has set before itself, the ideal of a kind of certainty that admits no possiblity of doubt, is leading us into skepticism and nihilism...
The confidence proper to a Christian is not the confidence of one who claims possession of demonstrable and indubitable knowledge. It is the confidence of one who had heard and answered the call that comes from the God through whom and for whom all things were made: 'Follow me.'"
OK, not quite an exit yet. All this said, I think what you are most powerfully and eloquently saying is that we actually should follow. We should move. We can know things, and we shouldn't be timid to say so. I agree.
Yeah...
ReplyDelete"Both faith and doubt have their proper roles in the whole enterprise of knowing." I just don't think I'm going to be comfortable with that for a while. Maybe one day. For now I think it is more the modern world's insistence on doubt if scientific proof is not available that is leading us into skepticism.
Thank you for your compliments. I don't think I'm trying to say we should follow (though of course, we should.) I'm trying to say we should believe.
Thanks for your wisdom, Winn. I'm sure I'll come around soon enough.
BTW, if you are signed in to Blogger (which requires going to blogger.com once if you're signed in to gmail), you will see a link "subscribe by email" link here, which will update you whenever a comment is written on this post.
Thanks and peace, brother.
I don't think you need to come around to anything. Keep pushing and pressing.
ReplyDeletetwo quick reactions:
I don't think I'm trying to say we should follow (though of course, we should.) I'm trying to say we should believe.
I'm saying that following is what the Scripture means by believe. The idea of absolute emotional confidence is a modern concept we are reading back into the text. When Jesus offered a personal face-to-face invitation to someone, it was almost always (I'd say always, but perhaps there is an example I'm missing) "follow me" not "believe in me." Following includes believing (and Jesus certainly had a lot to say about the need to believe - but most interesting that it wasn't the language he uses to personal invites/challenges), but is bigger than that - and bigger even than our doubts.
For now I think it is more the modern world's insistence on doubt if scientific proof is not available that is leading us into skepticism.
But why is this so? I think what Newbigin is getting at is that we moderns have come to believe that the kind of certainty scientific evidence supposedly provides is the only kind of certainty that is valid. Again, there is a valid knowledge, conviction, assurance, what have you - that doesn't have to play into the modernist question: "Are you 100% confident that you are 100% right without any twinge of question?"
From whence comes our confidence? From God. By faith. Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And by the witness of the Spirit. It's knowledge. It's a valid way to know things (the most valid, by my lights).
I might be conflicted all around these things at time, but faith returns me to restful confidence in God, not confidence in my emotional level of certainty.
Good conversation. Thanks for starting it. Carry on with the good words.
I doubt you're coming back to this Winn, but it takes me a long time to chew over the great amount of wisdom you've been leaving here. So I'll go ahead and comment for posterity.
ReplyDeleteIf you equate "follow" with "believe," then of course there are few (no?) instances where Jesus instructs folks to follow instead of believe. But if you do not equate these two, then I think there are many, from "faith of a mustard seed" to "why do you doubt?" to the moment on the cross when Jesus tells the man beside him that because he has done nothing but believe, he will be with him in heaven.
Then there's the obvious question, if "follow" is what the Scripture means by "faith" and "conviction" and "certainty" and "do not doubt"...then why does it say all that? Another hidden meaning lost in translation? Perhaps that really is the case.
Somehow, I got an email on this one. So here I am.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I jumbled what I was saying. I am not saying that Jesus doesn't talk about believing (or that follow and believe are exactly synonymous), but that when speaking directly to someone for the purpose of issuing a challenge to respond, he usually puts the language in the form of "follow me," not "believe in me." He taught people on the need to believe. He spoke often of the call to faith. He spoke of what believing would bring to and do in a person. However, when he issues the personal invite, his language is "follow me." This is instructive. In part, it tells us that to follow must include a kind of belief (because, as you elude to, belief is essential). The belief, I'm suggesting, is more of an emphasis on obedience than on feeling.
And the Biblical notion of belief is not mental assent or the feeling of certainty. To believe is to trust, to respond in the obedience of faith. I can believe (or follow) with varying levels of "how confident" I feel. I believe (pardon the pun) that what we moderns mean by doubt is often not the same thing as what Scripture /Jesus meant by doubt.
To beat a now dead horse, the emotional feeling of confidence is not the determining factor for whether or not I have faith.
~out.