Talk 1) WHAT IS FAITH? and SOME REASONS TO BELIEVE

This is the first in a series of talks that I just gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp. The main theme: Faith.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Help us to know and love you more and more. Move us to action.
This talk is called: What is Faith? and Some Reasons to Believe. The title needs no explaining. There might be a chance for a question and answer afterwards.
So, what is faith? (Really ask.) What does faith mean to you? Put it in your own words? Why do you believe? What do you want to know about Christianity? Are you comfortable with your faith? Do you share your faith?
In my testimony last night I shared with you how I became confused over matters of faith, how my heart grew cold, how I began to sin against God. Although an apparent “leader”, my faith was immature, my knowledge of God was weak. As it was the Apostle Paul’s goal to “warn and teach everyone in all wisdom, so that he could present everyone mature in Christ” (Colossians 1.28), so it is my goal to teach wisdom to you, that you may become mature, not childish in your faith, so that empty preaching and empty “truths” do not “take you captive” (Colossians 2.8).
It is true that the Christian faith can be so easy to live that a child is the exemplar, according to Jesus: “Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 17.2). But it is not for us adults – for we are adults – to be childish in our understanding of the faith. Yes, we should be like children in our trust, in our humility, in our relationship to our Heavenly Father. But much of the New Testament makes clear that we must move on from the first, simple understanding of the faith. The author of Hebrews says, “Let us go on towards perfection, towards maturity, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation” (Heb. 6.1-2). How many of us know what the foundation is? What does that prove to us? The same is repeated elsewhere in the New Testament (Heb 5.13,14; Pet. 2.2), and it makes sense. We must grow up; we must mature in our faith. We must move on from the first, simple understandings of the faith.
And we can do this – we can grow up in the faith – as the Holy Spirit teaches us more and more. Childish knowledge in the faith is fine for children, but we will begin to fall away if we do not continue to grow in Christ; both verses from Hebrews above speak of childish knowledge of the faith (not childlike faith) while warning against falling away. The reason is this: growth in understanding is essential to any relationship.
I was first attracted by Halyne’s qualities: her loyalty to friends, her strong will power, her sense of respect for others, her kindness, her servant-heart. Our relationship would not have even begun if I had not seen this in her, if I had not observed and known these things about her. (By the way, pay attention to how seeing and knowing relate in this talk.) Then Halyne had to grow to discover a few things about me. Then I learned about her family, and she about mine. We learned about each other’s past. After more time we learned about each other’s hopes and dreams. And the journey continues. We are learning little things like how to share stories as a couple, how much personal time we need, etc. If we stopped learning about each other, our relationship would surely stagnate and die, maybe not outwardly, but certainly inwardly. We would grow to have a certain amount of coldness towards each other. Certainly, there may be a stage where couples stop learning about each other, but I doubt it.
The same is true of our relationship with God. If we stop growing in our understanding and faith of Him, or if our faith becomes confused, our relationship with Him will certainly grow cold, as the author of Hebrews warns us.
Understanding is a “diving in,” it means “to know someone or something from the inside.” Our initial attraction to others is how we see them act, or how they look. Then we begin to know them in deeper and deeper ways. Our love for that person grows as we begin to understand them more and more (that is, of course, if they have good qualities, for if they have bad qualities, we would surely not want to marry them…that would be asking for a world of trouble).
Notice here what understanding and love have to do with each other. The more we begin to understand someone, if they are admirable, the more we will love them. In this way, by learning more and more about God, who is the most admirable, we will love Him more and more.
Can you want, desire, or love something or someone you don’t know about, that you don’t even know exists? No. Can you love someone you don’t know? Impossible. It is only when we get to know someone that our love for them develops. It is only as we understand someone that our love starts to grow – if they are admirable. Our love only grows as our understanding grows. The same is true with God: when we begin know Him more and more, we will begin to love Him more and more. This is because God is good. We would not love Him if He was not good. And so, in understanding God more and more, in having an intimate understanding of God, our love for Him will become more passionate. Thus, we will begin live out the greatest commandment more and more: To love God with all that we are.

But what does this talk of understanding and loving God have to do with faith? Perhaps you already see the connection. Notice that, if we don’t have faith, we cannot love Him or please Him. Hebrews 11.6 says, “without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him” In other words: how can we approach Him if we don’t know that he exists? And why would we approach Him unless He is good (rewards honest effort)? Here, the author of Hebrews is saying what we said earlier: We must first believe that God exists and second understand that He is good and admirable, or else we cannot please Him. How could I please Halyne if I didn’t know her and her good qualities, for I would have never started a relationship with her in the first place unless I had known her? And so, without belief that God exists and that He is good, we cannot love God. But the more we come to believe that God is real and that He exists, the more we will love Him.
The problem with knowing God is that he is invisible and doesn’t always communicate with us in ways we would like: i.e., audibly talk to us, or show us physical body language, etc. But, there was a time when God came to earth, in the incarnation of Jesus. And the Bible makes clear that Jesus revealed to us the mystery of who God is and the mystery of God’s plan for the renewing of the world. Colossians 1.19 tells us: “For in Him [Jesus] the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” and later in that letter Paul tells us that “the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations…has now been revealed to his saints” (Col. 1.26) and that Christ is the “knowledge of God’s mystery (Col 2.2). But we have another problem: Jesus lived about 2000 years ago. And now, we can’t see God. How can we understand Him? Imagine this question from someone who does not believe in the authority of the Bible: How can you claim to understand who Jesus is if you have never seen Him or even heard Him say anything to you? How can you claim to know God?
Now, there are lots of ways we could go from here. We all know that our relationship with God is not troubled (much) by not seeing Him or hearing Him, and that we hear from Him in many different ways and that we see Him in many ways, but I want to take the opportunity to explain something fundamental about faith here. Let me explain what I want to get at using a scenario: Imagine seeing the robbery of a grocery store take place. In fact, you were there when the robber came in with his gun. You saw him take the cash from the till and drive off. They were stupid and had no mask on. You are a first-hand, eyewitness.
Now, imagine that the eyewitness is someone else and you are a member of the jury at the trial of the bank robber. The witness, the person who saw the crime gives their testimony. It is up to you as the jury, who can only hear about the crime (there were no cameras), to believe or not believe the eyewitness.
Notice the two parties involved: 1) the eyewitness, who has seen the crime taking place, and 2) the jury member who only hears what has taken place. Knowing something like 1+1=2 can be compared to seeing, like that eyewitness really saw the crime. 1+1=2 is obvious to us. We can take one finger on one hand and another finger on the other hand and see that there are two fingers there. We can see it for ourselves. But faith is not like that. Belief in Jesus and His goodness are not quite so obvious. Faith is compared to hearing, like the hearing of the jury member. Make a mental note: Knowing is likened to seeing and the eyewitness; faith, or believing, is likened to hearing and the jury. Also note that, if the jury believes the testimony of the eyewitness, he or she will act accordingly and cast a vote to convict the criminal of the crime.
Notice that both knowing something for sure, as an eyewitness, as a “seer”, and believing as a member of the jury, as a “hearer” as affirmations. They both say “yes.” Knowing and believing both affirm that something is true. Doubt, on the other hand is not affirming.
The Apostle Paul often uses this same type of language that we have been using (knowing=seeing; believing/faith=hearing): “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13.12). Instead of comparing faith to hearing, St. Paul compares faith to “seeing dimly” (remember what mirrors must have been like in that day). The analogy of knowing to seeing remains. St. Paul is saying that our knowledge of God is imperfect during this lifetime, that, in fact, we live by faith, not sight; but he is looking forward to seeing God after death, to knowing God.
And so faith is an imperfect form of knowing. There is an imperfection about it. If it was perfect, Paul would not have compared it to seeing dimly, as in an old-fashioned cloudy mirror. That faith is an imperfect type of knowing is a disconcerting thought at first, but we must take hope in the fact that Paul recognized this, and so did the author of Hebrews in his definition of faith.
They took hope, as we can, in this thought, which was expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1500s:
Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing; but if [the authority of] the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer’s sight, hearing is more certain than sight: thus a man of little science is more certain about what he hears on the authority of an expert in science, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason: and much more is a man certain about what he hears from God, Who cannot be deceived, than about what he sees with his own reason, which can be mistaken. (S.T. IIa, IIae, Q4, art.8, Reply to objections 2 and 3)
Thomas compares faith to a student learning from a teacher. The student has limited knowledge, where the teacher has lots of experience. Therefore, it is better for the student to trust the teacher than to only go on with his limited knowledge. (For example, hw many of us could know much about our solar system without trusting in scientists who study the solar system?)
So we need not worry about faith being an ”imperfect knowing.” As I said before, even St. Paul said so. But it is not as if our faith is groundless, for the jury must have good reason to believe the eyewitness.
In fact, though we rely on our personal experiences with God, our consciences, our hearing of the Holy Spirit, and our miraculous experiences, we rely on the Bible for our knowledge of God’s specific actions in history, including the incarnation of Jesus, and we rely on the Bible for our belief that Jesus is God, one of the three Persons of the Trinity, and we rely on the Bible to affirm that God is merciful, that He will judge the living and the dead, and that Jesus died for our sins so that we can live with God forever, having eternal life. And so we, like the jury, rely on the eyewitnesses of the apostles and those who saw and heard and touched Jesus, both before His death and after His resurrection. We rely on these people, who were appointed by God, to accurately tell us of Jesus’ character, of his teaching, of his deeds and miracles, that Jesus was worthy of worship of a kind of which only God is worthy.
It is important to remember that a group of people were actually with Jesus when he did miracles, and saw Him and really experienced Jesus after He has risen from the grave. These are not myths, they actually happened. This is important to know. Peter says:
For we do not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to Him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My Son, My Beloved, with Whom I am well Pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (Second Peter 1.16-19)
Notice that Peter was an eyewitness. Just as the jury judges the credibility of the eyewitness based on the character of the witness and other criteria, so we can trust in the witness of Peter, who died because of his faith in Jesus, as did Paul and many of the other apostles. Some believe that the apostles hallucinated when they saw Jesus risen from the grave. First of all, this seams flat out ridiculous, since Jesus was seen by man, but also, would you be willing to stake your life on a hallucination? And what are the chances that that many people had similar hallucinations? The apostles staked their lives (the very way they lived their lives changed) and deaths (they were willing to die for preaching Jesus) on the reality of what they experienced in Jesus Christ. Obviously, Peter had really seen, touched, heard, experienced Jesus and had known Jesus’ character and goodness.
As both an aside, and yet an integral point, notice how important character is to witnessing. Are we living this kind of life, sure of our faith, and living life virtuously? How can we be good witnesses if we are not? How can we expect people to believe in Jesus when they have bad characters to look at?
As another aside and yet integral point, noticed how encouraged we are as believers when we read these words of Peter, that he actually saw, heard, touched, knew Jesus. We should be unashamed to share similar faith stories with one another. This will help us to “be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith,” as St. Paul wanted to encourage in Romans 1.13, which is a part of the theme verse for this year’s Crossroads group.
Notice also that Peter tells us to believe his message (“you will do well to be attentive to this”), because it lights our way. Notice how seeing is used here. We can only be believers, for we did not see Jesus working miracles, etc. We can only know imperfectly, but the words of the apostles shine light into the darkness. The fact that Peter and the other apostles really experienced Jesus, and that they can be trusted, allows us to believe firmly, with the same assurance as someone who knows that 1+1=2.
The Apostle John also uses this real experience of Jesus as a basis for believing his words:
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us – we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. (First John 1.1-3)
By now you may be asking, “What is the point of all this?” Or perhaps the point is obvious to you. There are a few great points that come out of this: 1) the nature of faith as imperfect knowledge, yet superior to simple, personal knowledge; 2) that growth in understanding and faith in God lead to a more intense love for Him, so it is worthwhile to grow in faith; 3) some of the teachings of Scripture have surely become clearer; 4) we have been reminded that our character is essential to our testimony; 5) we have seen how we can encourage each other in the faith, through stories of God’s activity in our lives, also through teaching, and through the reading and understanding of Scripture; 6) we can now “give a reason for the hope that is inside you” as First Peter 3.15 says we should always be prepared to give.
There are other reasons to trust the Bible besides the character and lives of Peter and John and Paul, just as there is more than one reason for a jury to believe an eyewitness. We won’t talk of these in detail. The coherency of the beliefs, the “opening up” of our person when our faith grows, the beauty, and inherent goodness in the faith are all corroborating reasons to believe in Jesus as Lord and God, and that the words of the Bible are authoritative. There are many more reasons too, but we will not discuss them here.
We should now take a look at the classic, biblical definition of faith. The classic biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11.1. I have chosen not to approach this text first because we tend to read over it, assuming that we understand it because we’ve read it so many times; a classic confusing of familiarity with understanding.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” says Hebrews 11.1. Notice the idea of seeing is present again. Although we do not see God, nor fully understand Him, nor did we see Jesus do miracles, or rise from the dead, nor have we seen God “make all things new,” or resurrect the bodies of believers, yet we still are convinced that these things have happened (the historic happenings of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection), are happening (making all things new), or will happen (resurrection of the dead). Though belief is imperfect knowledge, yet it still shares the same certainty as knowledge (“assurance”, “conviction”). It is something that we believe that changes the way that we live our lives. We will talk about faith and action in the third and last talk, but for now I will quote a line from Lesslie Newbigin’s book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true” (p.127, 1898, Eerdmans). By this, the former missionary in India means that if we really believe the gospel, we will publish our love for God both in our actions and in our words, in acts of love, and in sharing our faith with others; we must not be ashamed of the gospel, (Romans 1.16; Second Timothy 1.8) for God’s power comes for salvation of all (it is universal), even if it leads to us suffering for our faith, as it meant for the apostles and the early Christians.

Now, we should briefly talk of two vices, or bad habits of the mind, that hinder faith in us. We can encourage “blindness of mind” and “dullness of mind” in our lives. Blindness of mind can come about because we deliberately turn away from the truths or consequences of faith, but this rarely happens. More often, blindness of mind comes as a result of distractions in our lives. We get distracted knowing God more intimately through love of sleep, of watching TV, etc. There are many more habits, even more serious habits that distract us from knowing God more. We must intentionally seek a more profound faith, as God wishes to grow this in us. It takes a lot of work to get rid of old habits and replace them with new ones, but it is necessary for a life that is more full. These things distract us and hinder us from our goal of knowing God more fully, just as excess weight slows down a marathon runner; “Let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12.1). And we do need perseverance, and the encouragement of each other in order to keep on those good habits.
Secondly, “dullness of mind” can hinder our faith. Some are naturally dull. It is a weakness of mind; an inability to perceive something without copious amounts of explanation. This can be worked on. It takes a long time for many of us to learn something complex, such a new language. The same is true of understanding the faith. It is like the author of Hebrews just reminded us: it takes perseverance. It takes much prayer to God for understanding until we really start to get it.
To sum up: 1) the nature of faith as imperfect knowledge, yet superior to simple, personal knowledge; 2) that growth in understanding and faith in God lead to a more intense love for Him, so it is worthwhile to grow in faith; 3) some of the teachings of Scripture have surely become clearer; 4) we have been reminded that our character is essential to our testimony; 5) we have seen how we can encourage each other in the faith, through stories of God’s activity in our lives, also through teaching, and through the reading and understanding of Scripture; 6) we can now “give a reason for the hope that is inside you” as First Peter 3.15 says we should always be prepared to give; 7) we must act on our faith if we really believe it, even if it means persecution; if it is true, then it is even worth dying for; 8) we must avoid the temptations to be lazy and to give up on our relationship with God; there are many distractions and much difficulty along the way, but the end result is worth it; 9) although we have often been compared to the jury who judges the words of the Scriptures, it must be said that, when we believe in Jesus as God, his words end up judging us, showing us how to be more like him, encouraging us to destroy sinful habits, for God did not call us to impurity, but in holiness” (Colossians 4.7).
Let me conclude with this: it is worth it. To continue the above quote from Hebrews: “Let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12.1,2). In the next talk, among other truths, we will learn of the joy that awaits us.
End with a prayer.
See if anyone has questions…or perhaps it would be better for some songs of response.
Hand out discussion questions.

(I am greatly indebted to my readings of Josef Pieper (Faith, Hope, Love) and of Thomas Aquinas (S.T. IIa, IIae) for this understanding of faith. All praise to the Holy Spirit for leading us into truth.)

1) Discussion questions: WHAT IS FAITH? and SOME REASONS TO BELIEVE

• What do you think about “growing in understanding,” of deepening your faith in God? Is it true that we are supposed to understand our faith more and more? Or is it better to have a “simple” faith?
• Have you ever had a time in your life when you’ve questioned your faith? Can you tell of that time?
• In your words, what is faith?
• Does faith as “imperfect knowing” make sense to you? Is it biblical? Does the analogy of seeing and hearing as knowledge and faith make sense to you? Why or why not?
• How can “imperfect knowing” (i.e. faith) be better and more trustworthy than “knowing for yourself”?
• Can we trust the words of the Bible? Why?
• Are you more comfortable with your faith after this talk? Or perhaps less? How so?
• Do you think you would be more comfortable talking to others about your faith after this talk? Why or why not?
• Will you be more comfortable talking with each other about matters of faith after this? Will you be more confident?
• Why do you think we can be embarrassed or timid when it comes to talking about our faith in Jesus Christ? Does this seem to be consistent with our actions or while we are singing praises to God in church? Do we have the same boldness inside and outside of church? Are we confident in either place?
• Do you have bad habits that keep you from developing your relationship with God? Sin? Laziness? Apathy? Or is it just too difficult to understand the Bible or is it too boring to read? How can we get rid of these bad habits (blindness and dullness of the mind)?
• How is your prayer life? Do you spend time cultivating your relationship with God through prayer?

Chavez Tightens His Grip On Venezuela

I read an article about some laws that Chavez is trying to get passed in Venezuela. These laws will potentially hinder the Venezuelan media from accurate reporting.

On July 30, 2009, Venezuela's attorney general introduced draft legislation on 'media crimes' that establish prison sentences of up to four years for anyone who, through media outlets, provides 'false' information that 'harm[s] the interests of the state.'
...
Minister Cabello also proposed new regulations that state that any cable channel with more than 30 percent Venezuelan-produced programming (including shows and advertisements) would be compelled to transmit President Chávez's speeches live at his request, and would be subject to Venezuelan media laws, including the Law on Social Responsibility.
Source: Human Rights Watch

It is interesting to note what we take for granted in articles like this (the assumptions of the writer of the story): the ability of people to be able to able to filter the truth of media, the goodness of the media, our rights to know, that a free market economy is better than a controlled economy.

Also, this got me thinking about Jesus. It strikes me time and time again that, though Jesus had the power and the popular vote, he never sought office. In fact, the New Testament Gospel writers saw this (as Jesus must have himself) as a major evil, satanic temptation.

I am going to enjoy reading The Politics of Jesus again over the next few months. I was unable to grasp it the first time I read it, about a year ago, but my level of understanding has grow since then.

How people should be involved in politics/government is a hugely important topic.

Debate on Honduras

I have been trying to keep track of the situation in Honduras. I have not yet listened to the debate between Lanny Davis and Greg Grandin, aired on DemocracyNow!, but I am sure that it is worth considering. Here is a link: Honduras Debate.

Pleasure: Small, Medium, or Large?

Recently, I listened to a segment on the health problems related to overeating in America and how the food industry has helped create that (see the end of the entry for a brief description and a link to the piece) In my opinion, the story is worth watching/reading/ listening to. Before I address the news story, I would first like to talk about something that Plato has taught me and that I think about on a regular basis.

In 583b- 587a of The Republic, using a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, Plato tells us that there are three levels to pleasure: Pain, pleasure, and repose (a sort of neutral point between pain and pleasure, something like good, but not great). Plato, through Socrates then says, "Let's not be persuaded that relief from pain is pure pleasure or that relief from pleasure is pure pain." Those who have not reached for pleasure and have supposed that repose is the greatest pleasure are missing out on true pleasure. Of course, here, Plato is talking about the pleasure of virtue (specifically, virtue of the mind, or wisdom; and, in fact, the proper allotment of pleasure to each part of a person).

In our context, Plato reminds us that, though we get pleasure out of eating fatty, and sugar-saturated foods, it is lower on the scale of pleasure from simply taking care of our bodies, through temperance and self-control (which, I admit, I need to ask God for more of). Indulging in/ being controlled by many pleasures will actually stop us from better, higher pleasures. They will hinder our judgment, create bad habits, and alter our characters and our ability to be wise. Often this is subtle. Often it is difficult to perceive why wisdom is so important and why we shouldn't follow the whims of lower pleasure.

We should trust the sensitive palates (speaking metaphorically here) of the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, and others who longed for, sought, and experiences happiness like few have. We must not settle for "repose", that comfortable spot between pain and pleasure, in our lives. Let us search for a higher pleasure.

Here is another way to understand what Plato was trying to get at: Plato tells us that when the proper ruler is in place, that everything is aligned correctly and that everything receives what is due. When tyrants rule, they seek not for the proper alignment of society, but to gain the most pleasure for themselves, and in so doing ruin the nation.

It is the same in us. If the proper ruler is in place (the mind, if it is wise) alots proper amounts of pleasure to the other parts of a person (not too much or too little food, sex, fear, pride, etc.). But if, say, the desire for food takes over, it will be a tyrant, and won't allow the mind or other important parts of a person to receive their proper pleasure. Soon enough the whole person may be ruined.

Perhaps this bit has been too metaphorical and to "airy", with nothing "solid" being said. I apologize for that, but I have still thought it worth sharing. We will do well to consider Plato's pain-repose-pleasure continuum.

Going back to the news story: as I listened, it struck me that there are two sides to this story:
1) Yes, food companies are probably making their food more tasty so that we will buy more. This "tastiness" is often unhealthy. This unhealthy "tastiness" has, to a certain extent, become an addiction, even at a chemical level. Food companies need to become virtuous, selling good products. This first part was the major focus of the story.
2) Though food companies can and should be blamed for part of the problem, and, if smoking is regulated, so should addictive and bad foods, but how much is this the fault of regular people who have not had enough virtue to steer clear from fatty foods? It is always our job to become more and more virtuous, and this often includes breaking bad habits. We need to become more virtuous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler: "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite" *

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the direct medical costs of obesity total about $147 billion a year. That amounts to nine percent of all US medical costs. It's also over $50 billion more than the annual spending on cancer. In the midst of this national focus on obesity, today we'll speak to David Kessler, who has spent the last seven years trying to understand how the food industry has changed American eating habits, made certain foods difficult to resist, and helped create the country's number one public health issue.

Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/3/former_fda_commissioner_david_kessler_the

Toward a Healthy Scepticism about Scepticism

It is my belief that one of the biggest problem facing North America and especially the Church in Western society is the intrusion of an unhealthy scepticism. Below are some of my thoughts, and more importantly, the thoughts of some others on the topic. I encourage you to spend some time on the quote below, as it is worth your time, even if you have to come back to it. I realize that people do not like to spend their time on long blog entries. We like it compact. As I mentioned, this is a topic of great concern, worthy of much consideration.

I had noticed myself, over the last number of years, becoming more and more sceptical. Always questioning. Always making sure to point out the bad with the good, emphasizing the bad. I became less encouraging, and more of something that I call "cold" or "hard-hearted". As a Christian, I became increasingly unable to pray or sing songs of praise to God with any meaning. When someone talked about God working in their life I really questioned it. These were the symptoms.
Something was wrong. Something had changed. It began to bother me that I had trouble connecting with the God that I claimed to have faith in. What was the matter?
It turns out that I had bought in to a philosophy that is incongruent with the gospel. Scepticism's priests, such as David Hume, have claimed that there is no God, that there can be no such thing as a miracle, and that everything must be called into question. Little did I know, but I was buying in to these very principles, without even knowing the philosophy. (I still know little about it. What I do know is from my own personal experience with it, and from some books.)
Of course, I am not saying that we shouldn't call things into question, for that is what I am doing right now. More on this later.
This mistrust of everything leads to a lack of hope and general cheer in life. Once again, I am not calling for an unrealistic approach.
Perhaps it would be good at this point to let someone smarter to jump in. I am looking forward to reading a book called A Secular Age, by Charles Taylor, that will hopefully clarify my thoughts on the "enlightenment project." As for books I have read, Alisdair MacIntyre's After Virtue has become somewhat of a classic when it comes to understanding the failures of the Enlightenment "project", including the thought of sceptics, such as Hume (also see Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy as another book of the sceptic's cannon). MacIntyre's book is phenomenal in its displaying of scepticism as unfounded, leading to nihilism (which seems to be a strange theme for this blog), which is expressed in Nietzsche's work. Niezsche, it must be said, carried the conversation to its logical conclusions... either live under God or be a nihilist, or, as expressed in MacIntyre's book: either be an ethical realist (there is goodness and rationality in the universe without man's having created it; man has not constructed nature, but must discover it) or be an ethical constructivist (there is no creator above man, and so there is no one above man who has given absolute truth, or goodness). Nietzsche sides on the ethical constructivist side.
As stated in an earlier entry, Fyodor Dostoyevsky also speaks of these themes, most notably in his The Brothers Karamazov, where Ivan becomes a sort of Enlightenment figure. It takes the cunning of Smerdyakov, the half-brother, to really take to heart the thoughts of Ivan and bring them to their logical conclusion: nihilism.
Along with MacIntyre, Nietzsche, and many others, I have to thank my wife for clearing my head of this muddle, for she has never bought into such cold scepticism. Praise be to God for his mercies.
But the inspiration for this whole blog has been a passage in a book that I have recently been re-reading. I will almost certainly do a review on the book in a later entry. The book is highly recommended.
The following extended quote comes from Lesslie Newbigin's book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 227-229. This comes in a section where J.E. Lesslie Newbigin is describing the six characteristics that the church needs in order influence society in a proper, Christ-like way (both as servant to society and uncompromising in it's character). The first and second of Newbigin's points are bellow, with some of my comments in square parenthesis.

1. It [the church] will be a community of praise. that is, perhaps, its most distinctive character. Praise is an activity which is almost totally absent from "modern" society. Here two distinct points can be made.
a. The dominant notes in the development of the specifically "modern" view of things has been (as we noted earlier) the note of scepticism, of doubt. The "hermeneutic of suspicion" is only the most recent manifestation of the belief that one could be saved from error by the systematic exercise of doubt. It has followed that when any person, institution, or tradition has been held up as an object worthy of reverence, it has immediately attracted the attention of those who undertook to demonstrate that there was another side to the picture, that the golden image has feet of clay. I suppose that this is one manifestation of that "disenchantment" which Weber regarded as a key element in the development of "modern" society. Reverence, the attitude which looks up in admiration and love to one who is greater and better than oneself, is generally regarded as something unworthy of those who have "come of age" and who claim that equality is essential to human dignity. With such presuppositions, of course, the very idea of God is ruled out. The Christian congregation, by contrast, is a place where people find their true freedom, their true dignity, and their true equality in reverence to One who is worthy of all the praise that we can offer.
b. Then, too, the Church's praise includes thanksgiving. The Christian congregation meets as a community that acknowledges that it lives by the amazing grace of a boundless kindness. contemporary society speaks much about "human rights." It is uncomfortable with "charity" as something which falls short of "justice," and connects the giving of thanks with an unacceptable subservience. In Christian worship the language of rights is out of place except when it serves to remind us of the rights of others. For ourselves we confes that we cannot speak of rights, for we have been given everythingand forgiven everything and promised everything, so that (as Luther said) we lack nothing except faith to believe it. In Christian worship we acknowledge that if we had received justice instead of charity we would be on our way to perdition. A Christian congregation is thus a body of people with gratitude to spare, a gratitude that can spill over into care for the neighbour. And it is of the essence of the matter that this concern for the neighbour is the overflow of a great gift of grace and not, primarily, the expression of commitment to a morale crusade [This has been the goal of the Enlightenment project, according to MacIntyre in After Virtue. It is the goodness of God, especially seen in Jesus Christ's removing our sins that is the cause of Christian joy; those who do not believe in miracles, such as the resurrection, cannot have this same view of goodness and are stuck either constructing moral rules (as Hume and Kant did) or denying that all such man-made rules are arbitrary and thus denying them (as Nietzsche did). It is of the essence that Christians discover more and more the deep goodness of God, for it is the antidote to the cold heart that many hate to have, but feel there is no other option.]
2. Second, [the Christian congregation] will be a community of truth. This may seem an obvious point, but it needs to be stressed. As I have tried to show in these chapters, it is essential to recognize that all human thinking takes place within a "plausibility structure" which determinds what beliefs are reasonable and what are not. The reigning plausibility structure can only be effectively challenged by people who are fully integrated inhabitants of the another [meaning that the "modern" structure that a priori denies miracles, God, etc. must be challenged by another type of thinking, which for Newbigin, is found in the gospel]. Every person living in a "modern" society is subject to an almost continuous bombardment of ideas, images, slogans, and stories which presuppose a plausibility structure radically different from that which is controlled by the Christian understanding of human nature and destiny. The power of contemporary media to shape thought and imagination is very great. Even the most alert critical powers are easily overwhelmed. A Christian congregation is a community in which, through constant remembering and rehearsing of the true story of human nature and destiny [found in the gospel], an attitude of healthy scepticism can be sustained, a scepticism which enables one to take part in the life of society without being bemused and deluded by its own beliefs about itself. And, if the congregation is to function effectively as a community of truth, its manner of speaking the truth must not be aligned to techniques of modern propaganda, but must have the modesty, the sobriety, and the realism which are proper to a disciple of Jesus.