At HiFi, my friend OneWay comments on the fact that Doubt is so hot right now. He cites the current catchphrase, "the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty" - and then demonstrates why this line of reasoning falls flat on its face:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
As a matter of fact, if you replace all the occurrences in the Bible of the word "faith" with the word "certainty", I find congruence. The word "doubt"? No way.
Apparently cultural popularity isn't such a great litmus test for biblical theology. Related to the question of what place mystery has in orthodox Christian spirituality, I'm adding these paragraphs from an earlier post dealing with "Mystery vs. Certainty."
God-glorifying joy flows from true knowledge of God—not a hazy, general idea of Godness. God has gone to great lengths to reveal himself to us through the Bible. Therefore, the only God-honoring joy that flows from “mystery” stems from a projection of what we do know about God (which may be small or flawed, and thus problematic). This is not to say that the mysterious depths of God are not a catalyst for praise. But we are moved to awe by God's infinite, unfathomable goodness only because we've seen a degree of that goodness revealed—and therefore know that we're looking at a glorious, beautiful God and not an insidious, endlessly wicked monster!
However, postmodern discomfort with certainty can lead us astray when it is directed towards what God has clearly revealed. Therefore, propositions about God must be defended—because joy flows from truth understood. There's a stream of postmodern/emerging thought which is overly eager to apply the “mystery” label or write off divisive doctrinal issues as too “puzzling” or “unclear” to talk about (i.e. Brian McLaren’s hazy position on homosexuality). Stances like this do God a disservice because, quite simply, they do created reality and revelation a disservice. Chronic uncertainty is stylish, but it's not reality-based, and needs to be slapped back.
16 comments:
This really resonates with me, because it's so true how fashionable it has become to "embrace mystery" often at the cost of having faith's certainty.
The Biblical answer to both questions "Is there absolute truth?" and "Is truth knowable?" is a resounding YES, and it feels great to be reminded of that. Thanks.
Oh, and the Grammar Nazi in me wants to point out you mean "e.g." rather than "i.e." in that last paragraph. But I will resist the urgings of the Grammar Nazi. Oh, wait...
"Stances like this do God a disservice because, quite simply, they do created reality and revelation a disservice."
Yet, I think absolutist positions on revelation (as constrained to biblical knowledge) also do a disservice to the way in which God might choose to reveal God's self in the here and now.
Ariel,
This is great stuff. It's well written, it's thought provoking, and I think it's true (there's just way too much stuff out there that nails the first two points and completely misses the third).
I think being comfortable with the revealed knowledge that we have of God and feeling free to use it to make distinctions is very important. I think there are a lot of things that are clear in Scripture, that have been clear for 2000+ years and that suddenly people are squinting their eyes at and saying "Yea, hath God said..."
Called Out on Grammar, i.e., Verbally Spanked
Nailed by the grammar nazi... Hoping to defend my position, I went over to about.com and discovered this:
"I.e." stands simply for "that is," which written out fully in Latin is 'id est'. "I.e." is used in place of "in other words," or "it/that is." It specifies or makes more clear.
"E.g." means "for example" and comes from the Latin expression exempli gratia, "for the sake of an example," with the noun exemplum in the genitive to go with gratia in the ablative . "E.g." is used in expressions similar to "including," when you are not intending to list everything that is being discussed.
::
Shoot, so my sentence should read, "e.g. Brian McLaren's..." Go ahead and laugh, because this is one of the few mistakes I've ever made in my life.
Yet, I think absolutist positions on revelation (as constrained to biblical knowledge) also do a disservice to the way in which God might choose to reveal God's self in the here and now.
Would you care to expand on this, Dustin? Certainly God communicates to us in ways other than through the Bible. However, the still, small, voice of God, telling me that now would be a good time to swipe an extra Russell Stover's chocolate from the box in the kitchen, doesn't have the same objectivity of, say, Exodus 20:15...
God is a personal God, and he can & does speak to his people in personal, "extrabiblical" ways. It would be a mistake to give subjective experiences of God the upper hand over biblical revelation, though.
As Gymbrall points out, calling the truths of 2000 years into question because they don't hit me the right way this morning is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Certainty about what God has revealed of Himself should be distinguished from our attempts to codify and build 'theology' from His revelation.
A healthy skepticism of our own theological propositions is necessary and even good for a postmodern, or even for a modern for that matter.
A healthy skepticism of our own theological propositions is necessary and even good for a postmodern, or even for a modern for that matter.
I think I probably agree with you on this point. Positions like this can get sticky though...
Jesus died for my sins; he was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day.
Would you call this a "theological proposition?" Something to consider is that vital parts of God's revelation read like "theology" - because they are. That is, they are propositional truth statement about the ways and character of God.
Thus, we find brief "creeds" appearing in the Epistles. There has always been a need for believers to "codify" truths of the faith in order to protect them.
Having said that, I don't want to deny that some theological propositions can be questioned (namely, those that don't appear with clarity in the Bible).
I often think that that's why we have 4 gospels and not one. With 4 slightly different personal perspectives on Jesus we can just begin to get a sense of who He is.
Our summaries of 'the gospel', especially when we are trying to share the good news with others, mostly suffer from this problem.
We think that e.g. (did I get that right?)a '4 spiritual laws' will do the job. What's really amazing tho is that the Holy Spirit is able to even work with this much of our pride and still bring people to salvation!
I wouldn't weigh one experience over the other. There is simply no way one can have the entire biblical experience on your mind at one time. Its too huge. God came though to write it on our heart. And so, the extrabiblical experience not only has more meaning for us personally, but also informs our biblical experience. And vice versa. We know God through the Bible, but we know the Bible through God.
Really true, the two should not be separated.
I do agree with Ariel in that it has become a fad to 'disbelieve everything' even when we have not done the hard work of figuring out what it is that we now disbelieve - and why.
It is a uniquely postmodern bit of confusion - and not really much different in effect than blindly believing a whole lot of stuff just because of it's supposed orthodoxy.
1. Biblical revelation. 2. Experience.
With 4 slightly different personal perspectives on Jesus we can just begin to get a sense of who He is.
I like that. The Bible is by no means an exhaustive revelation of God, but it gives us enough knowledge to stand on. The picture of Jesus we "see" in the gospels may seem sketchy, but it's enough to make us start running toward him. Not blind belief, but as Augustine said, "Faith searching for reason."
I wouldn't weigh one experience over the other...We know God through the Bible, but we know the Bible through God.
In theory, what you're saying sounds good, Will. Knowledge of God and experience must be fused, and the existential dimension of faith, as described by someone like Kierkagaard, is non-negotiable.
However...in reality, God's revelation must take precedence over our experience. Subjective experience can never serve as an interpretive grid for the Bible, no matter how good our intentions. If we approach truth through the lens of feeling, we end up questioning and discarding truths that were meant to be submitted to - if not understood with perfect clarity.
Otherwise, everyone starts channeling Jesus, carrying him around in their backpack for convenient revision when biblical theology gets too unpleasant.
Does experience deepen our understanding, is it a vital corollary to biblical truth? Yeah, absolutely. But experience looked to as an authority has all the traction of banana peels.
Huh oh... Ariel, I’m going to have to call you on this one. You have a lot of good stuff to say here, but I think you may go too far. In fact, ironically, I just blogged about this before I came to your site.
“God-glorifying joy flows from true knowledge of God—not a hazy, general idea of Godness.”
In Lewis’s definition of Joy, or Sehnsucht, we actually see something different, almost the opposite of what you’re saying. While he uses the word differently, there is still a relation, I think. What we find in the experience of sehnsucht is something that is out of the person’s reach. Mystery and ambiguity is inherent to the experience of sehnsucht because of its transcendental nature. In fact, the ambiguity is what gives the experience of sehnsucht (in the non-Christian, anyway) any Christian purpose because it is what draws a person to the transcendental Other. (I talk all about this in my paper on Lewis, Joy, and Pilgrim’s Regress.)
But what role does mystery have for a Christian? Well, I think there is perhaps a similar paradoxical experience for the Christian. There is a “knowledge” even in the mystery of sehnsucht for the non-christian—i.e. they know what they don’t want, they don’t want anything in this world. Thus there is ambiguity and clarity—paradox. With the Christian, I see something similar, perhaps. We see some things as much more crystal than others. Even most emergents I know would agree with the basics of the apostles creed. But then there is stuff that is more fuzzy, like Revelations. We need to be careful with what theology we vivisect scientifically, and also with what we relenquish as “mystery." Holy Mystery is theological aesthetic, beautiful, it spurs us to seek understanding, to long for, to desire, it exerts a power over us that deductive explanation just cannot do. We are a paradoxical people who should be extremely cautious about exclusively embracing one thing or another.
As much of a Lewis fan you are, you will know that Lewis perceived Christianity as a myth, a true myth, the Myth. But the essence of good myth (like good art) is that it is both rooted in concrete reality but also slippery and ultimately out of our reach of rational explanation. Well, I’m too tired right now to really to try to lay it all out here, but feel free to look at my blog “Gospels: Literality, Reliability, and Myth” for a more detailed look at what I’m trying to think through: http://flatlanderdox.blogspot.com/ .
But going back to your first idea: the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty. There is truth in this, but I wouldn’t make it my life’s motto. The truth is that really, ultimately, there is very, very, very little (if anything) that we can really know with absolute certainty. This is our epistemological limitation as human beings. Because we are finite, we can say very little “for sure.” But this is not contrary to Faith. Faith does not need absolute certainty, it only needs a kind of confidence that can lead a person to act on that belief. For more on my take on Faith and Certitude, see my blog entry here: http://flatlanderdox.blogspot.com/2006/05/faith-and-certitude.html .
Hey Adam, after closely reading your comment, I'm not sure that our perspectives are that different. I suspect that some semantical wires got crossed at some point.
“God-glorifying joy flows from true knowledge of God—not a hazy, general idea of Godness.”
In Lewis’s definition of Joy, or Sehnsucht, we actually see something different, almost the opposite of what you’re saying.
I think there's a need to qualify this (if not "critique" it). Lewis carefully traces the strands of sehnsucht longing in his early life, noting that they were mysteriously piercing, but the beauty of these pangs of joy was not fully unveiled until Lewis came to know Christ. Only when the end of the story come in view is the promise of mere mystery really fulfilled.
I'd suggest that without the knowledge (partial, yes, but enough) of Christ, "mystery" can only lead so far:
The Way of the Disillusioned ‘Sensible Man’—He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. ‘Of course,’ he says, ‘one feels like that when one’s young. But by the time you get to my age you’ve given up chasing the rainbow’s end.’ And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of himself which used, as he would say, ‘to cry for the moon.’
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 136
Mystery is powerful; God is mysterious; but we learn to love and long for this mystery because of what we've seen disclosed in Christ.
Thanks for the read & the comment; let me know if I'm misreading you. I'll take a look at your post as well.
Further Mystery Thoughts
This is very well said, and I agree:
Holy Mystery is theological aesthetic, beautiful, it spurs us to seek understanding, to long for, to desire, it exerts a power over us that deductive explanation just cannot do.
I think you go a little far here.
We are a paradoxical people who should be extremely cautious about exclusively embracing one thing or another.
There are certain things we had better embrace exclusively, because God expects us to. "This is my son, in whom I am well-pleased..."
I find this tension very interesting:
Paul on the one hand says he prays that we would (experientially) know the love of God which we'll never fully understand. Personally experiencing God's love for us is more important than understanding it, especially since we will never fully understand it (in this life).
On the other hand I'd say Paul would agree with me that we can and should fully understand that (not why) God in fact loves us. We can and should fully understand that Christ died for sinners ("This is a trustworthy statement which deserves full acceptance...").
I find quite a few statements like that where I'd say God (and Paul ;) is expecting us to fully accept them and trust them with total certainty.
Whereas some questions, e.g. (sorry, couldn't resist ;) the full nature of the love of God, are things God wants to remain mysteries for us, things to experience first and foremost rather than to understand.
I don't have the time to polish this up, hope it makes sense. :)
Good points, John. I'm also impressed that you worked "e.g." in--this may be the first instance of grammar smack that I've been exposed to ;).
Paul on the one hand says he prays that we would (experientially) know the love of God which we'll never fully understand. Personally experiencing God's love for us is more important than understanding it, especially since we will never fully understand it (in this life).
On the other hand I'd say Paul would agree with me that we can and should fully understand that (not why) God in fact loves us...
It's paradoxical that a level of mystery is inherent to some of the most basic & wonderful truths about God - which he expects us to believe with certainty! It's as if God propels us toward these mysteries of his love and sacrifice for us, then caps them off with solemn promises so we won't have the option of doubting what we cannot fully understand.
Post a Comment