Prepare for the desert! Hitchens makes a strong statement in his book God is Not Dead:
To ‘choose’ dogma and faith over doubt and experiment is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.
Which reminded me of something that Wendell Berry wrote in in his book, The Unsettling of America. Berry believes the pursuit of truth is better than the protection of it. Once the mind has “consented to be orthodoxâ€, then it becomes “narrow, rigid, mercenary, morally corrupt, and vengeful against dissenters.†He says this is the nature of orthodoxy: “one who presumes to know the truth does not look for itâ€. He continues:
The pattern of orthodoxy in religion, because it is well known, gives us a useful paradigm. The encrusted religious structure is not changed by its institutional dependents– they are part of the crust. It is changed by one who goes alone to the wilderness, where he fasts and prays, and returns with cleansed vision. In going alone, he goes independent of institutions, forswearing orthodoxy (‘right opinion’). In going to the wilderness he goes to the margin, where he is surrounded by the possibilities– by no means all good– that orthodoxy has excluded. By fasting he disengages his thoughts from the immediate issues of livelihood; his willing hunger takes his mind off the payroll, so to speak. And by praying he acknowledges ignorance; the orthodox presume to know, whereas the marginal person is trying to find out. He returns to the community not necessarily with new truth, but with a new vision of the truth he see it more whole than before.
All religions and their adherents need to prepare themselves to enter into this very desert now, to admit that we do not “know” and finally embrace doubt and mystery. I think we must initiate this willingly and humbly because we are going to be dragged there otherwise.
The fine art photograph is the creation of my friend Mark Hemmings.
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential.
David, I know most thinking Christians use the bible as the basis for their faith. They believed, or continue to believe because of their faith in the bible as the word of God. Of course there are those who believe because of what they have been told is in the bible.
I guess I just have to wonder what part in your life does the bible play?
Berry believes the pursuit of truth is better than the protection of it. Once the mind has “consented to be orthodoxâ€, then it becomes “narrow, rigid, mercenary, morally corrupt, and vengeful against dissenters.â€
But if “truth” is in the Christian bible, and it has been studied and accepted as truth, what else is there to pursue? Once the thinking Christian accepts what he has read in the bible, isn’t the matter settled? Isn’t “orthodoxy” the only path the Christian can walk if he or she has read, understands, and accepts as truth, the book in which he or she basis their faith on?
He says this is the nature of orthodoxy: “one who presumes to know the truth does not look for itâ€.
I agree with this statement, but I am honestly confused. Where can the Christian go to “look for” the truth outside of the bible?
Please keep in mind that all I really know about the Christian faith is from my own miserable 25 year experience as a believer. All I really know is what I believed and felt. Doubt was a very nasty thing in the circles I ran. If I doubted, I panicked. The only source of comfort or reassurance was in the bible. If I couldn’t find it, I prayed, (because the bible tells me to do that) or sought the council of believers (again, the bible).
I think what I am finding confusing David, is what seems to be your…invitation for doubt. You give the impression that you are not afraid of where doubt could possibly lead you. And I just don’t understand how a Christian can do that.
As much as I enjoy reading what you post here, I am not confident that this is the real you. I am not saying that I think you are being dishonest, I am just wondering if my impression of you is accurate…or if I can even form an impression of you? I think that is because I have never encountered a believer who communicates thoughts as you have here. Thoughts that, when I was a believer, would have given me the signal that you were not a “true” Christian.
You know what is so funny David, if you were a fundamentalist wacko, I tell you that you are one of the reasons why I am not a Christian…and if you were a liberal, open minded Christian, I would say, I don’t need to become a Christian, David is just as confused as I am.
Randy: Thanks for your incisive question. The bible only points to the truth. It isn’t the truth. If a Christian were truly honest, he or she would have to admit that Jesus is the truth. The bible only points to that. I have to say that I don’t fully know Jesus or understand the mystery. I do invite doubt. I LIVE there. I gave up on certainty a long time ago… except the certainty that I do not know. I may not be a “true” Christian, in your understanding of the word. We may already be brothers. In fact, I suspect this is so.
Uhm…sorry, David, but it’s just not clear to me…what is it that I’m supposed to admit that I don’t know?
There are lots of things I don’t know, to be sure. But there are some few things that I’m reasonably sure that I do actually know.
I just want to know what it is I’m supposed to admit that I don’t know before I change flavors of Kool-aid.
David: You said “The Bible only points to the truth. It isn’t the truth.”
What about John 17:17? Jesus said (while praying to His Father), “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
If the Bible is God’s Word, how can it NOT be the truth?
If John 1:1 is true, then how can you make a distinction between Jesus and the Word?
Certainly there is a place for doubt inasmuch as we are fallible beings, but not as it pertains to the inerrancy and truth of Scripture.
Hey Dave,
Gotta say, that post hit home. For most of my Christian life I hung onto this idea that doubt was almost unforgivable. It was a source of great shame for me because I have had very real experiences with Jesus but still had (and have) moments of doubt. I am of the opinion that anyone without periodic doubt has not truly allowed themselves to be honest. We don’t want to allow our idea of faith to be shaken because it also shakes our reality. From my perspective, there is no other way to truly get closer to Jesus than to accept that we don’t really know him. Thanks for the post Dave!
Good Christian theology states that Jesus is the truth and the Word… incarnated. The bible is not the Word. It can only point to it. When it is preached, even then it requires the Spirit to become Word. We must admit that from the very beginning. All the text criticism etc. must lead us to this conclusion.
See David, this is what I am talking about: Elizabeth…Certainly there is a place for doubt inasmuch as we are fallible beings, but not as it pertains to the inerrancy and truth of Scripture.
“Inerrancy and truth of Scripture”…but, I know you were probably expecting that from some, if not many. But that is what I am so confused about. I think what I am mostly confused about is your honesty. I think “true” Christians are by (psychological) nature, dishonest. They don’t necessarily do it intentionally, but what they do is make claims of knowledge of a truth, when in fact, they don’t really know if the claim is true or not. In the quote above, Elizabeth makes a claim about inerrancy and truth without actually “KNOWING” if it is so. (Sorry Elizabeth, not meaning to talk about you as if you are not in the room.) She can’t possibly KNOW that the bible she has in her hand is without error, so she mistakes (substitutes) her “belief” for knowledge or truth.
And David, even as open and honest as you are, you speak in a similar manner. You said: “The bible only points to the truth”, but actually, you say that with nothing more that faith as evidence. You are making a claim about a fact based on faith (my head is starting to hurt). Why did you do that? Is it because you have to do that, have to believe that in order to remain in the club? Do you actually believe that, or do you just actually believe you are supposed to believe that?
While I agree with you when you said “If a Christian were truly honest, he or she would have to admit that Jesus is the truth.”, I really have no idea what that means. What does it mean “Jesus is the truth”? But I do agree that honest Christians will admit that, but I think they will not have the slightest idea what that means, they will just know that they are supposed to admit that.
As for being a “true” Christian, I have no doubt that you are one. I was saying that, if I was still a Christian, I would say you probably were not
Maybe that’s the sign of a “true” Christian…he or she can recognize the fake ones..? But from my perspective now, everyone who honestly believes that they are a Christian, is a Christian.
Thanks for your thoughts David.
Why is dogma paired with faith? Why is doubt paired with experiment?
Are we buying into the secular notion that truth is not arrived at except through doubt? Is doubt a reasonable way to ascertain truth? I doubt it.
Can we reject dogma and accept faith? Can we reject indiscriminate doubt and still experiment?
I think so. What is presented is a logical fallacy.
As to “entering the desert,” I don’t disagree, but it doesn’t always have to be a desert.
Elizabeth, you have asked a good question. I agree with David’s response.
Here’s a question that challenges orthodoxy: What makes you assume that the “word” is the “Bible”? Where does that come from? How do you justify that assumption?
Randy, how does anyone KNOW that something is true?
I would suggest to you that even the most die-hard naturalist/atheist/whateverist accepts things as true (KNOWS them to be true) without them “passing the test” of whatever he/she SAYS is a requirement for knowledge–unless he/she concedes that nothing can be known; the ultimate agnostic.
where is the room for faith if we have no doubt? faith and doubt are not opposites, they are bedfellows! in a world of certainty there is no room for faith.
interesting that hitchens puts faith and dogma together, like they’re the same… i guess that’s how it may look… but i would put faith, doubt and experiment together and suggest that dogma leaves no room for the other three.
John 17:17? Jesus said (while praying to His Father), “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.â€
why do you assume jesus is talking about the bible here. jesus is the word. the words are just a poor reflection of the word. the bible has all mans good and evil in it’s pages… from wonderful love to horendous nationalism and prejudice. the acts of jesus shine out like a sore thumb from the bibles pages… that’s where i place my faith.
jon birch,
I agree. Doubt is not the “unpardonable sin.” However, many go to the other extreme and set up doubt as the paradigm of virtue in the quest for knowledge without acknowledging the “faith” that any quest for knowledge requires.
Fred, I make no dogmatic claims. I can tell you that I accept many things as true, but only because I accept the evidence presented to me. The evidence I can observe at this moment is that I am typing this in response to your post, so I accept it as true.
So, I don’t think I disagree with your statement.
So, how am I different than many Christians? I can think of one way: I will honestly admit that I do not know know.
But from another viewpoint, my friend Robert G. Ingersoll said: “The clergy know that I know that they know, that they do not know.”
So then it’s a matter of degree–how do you know what you know? How do I know what I know?
The “tag line” (if you would call it that) on my blog is “Don’t let others spoil your faith and joy with their philosophy, wrong and shallow answers based on man’s thoughts and ideas rather than what Christ has taught†(Col. 2:8).
So my understanding of that is we are to find our truths in the Bible, based on the teachings of Christ recorded there. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law. The commandments were still supposed to be followed. Some might say that the commandments themselves are orthodoxy, wouldn’t they?
I guess the problems come when people decide to interpret all of this for you, and you are to accept their interpretation with no questions asked. I don’t think that’s at all what Jesus had in mind. Yet, he did ask questions as a boy at the temple, so he showed respect for the leaders and what insights they had to share.
No doubt, many people have grown up in churches where they are taught to accept the church interpretations and questioning is not encouraged. I think this is wrong, and it’s pointless. People have those doubts and questions anyway, so what is the use of suppressing it? I have far preferred my teens asking the questions. (And believe me, they don’t hold back.)
At the same time, I do believe there has to be some structure within the faith, which pertains to some of the other discussions this week as well. If there is no leadership at all, no teachings, etc., then what do you really have?
David, are you saying there is a difference between word (lower case) and Word (upper case)?
Which would mean that the Bible is the word (lower case) of God as written by men under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The Word (upper case) is Jesus.
Ack. I’m confused! Because with that distinction, what do we make of 1 Thess.2:13 “…because when you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually works also in you who believe.” ?
Randy: as you can see from this comment, I make no claims to truly KNOW anything, in the scientific sense. In fact, I do not know as I ought! However, I don’t think belief & knowledge are as mutually exclusive as you make them out to be. You can call me dishonest for saying that, but I would posit that it’s not dishonesty so much as me being a novice theologian.
I do distinguish between the bible (the word) and Jesus (the Word). The bible was written by men inspired. I didn’t intend for this to get into a debate on inerrancy. Rather, I wanted to warn us that a time to admit that what we don’t know is coming. And that will mean “desert”, as in a barren time, stripped down, essential and simple and minimal. Humility.
isn’t there only one word? isn’t jesus the word being referred to in thess.2:13?
enough on that though… sorry np.
the older i get, the less i know.
the older i get, the more of a fool i feel.
the older i get, the less certain things seem.
the older i get, the more i like the child i was.
the older i get, the more wrong i see in me.
in short… it may appear i am becoming less like christ,
but i hope i am becoming more honest… like the child i was.
i hope.
Fascinating stuff, Dave and amazing discussions. Great quote today by Berry.
I’m a bit of a newbie when it comes to blogs and I can’t imagine spending more time on my laptop than I already do, so I’m never going to read through all of the comments on the “no vision” blogs, but that’s what I really wanted to comment on. I probably should put this comment there but I thought you might never see it – the conversations seem to stay pretty current.
I’m a long term advocate of scrapping vision statements. I’ve never found the process very helpful, and I’ve done it too many times. In a couple of presentations on the benefits of narrative truth over against objective or absolute truth, I have urged people (in the midst of vision-centred territory) to scrap vision and mission statements in favour of a narrative.
In the comments, I can’t help but feel there is a mix of semantics and personalities that we’re naturally in tension with. And generally it’s probably good to have some structure/vision people mixed with no structure/no vision people on any leadership team. But I can’t help but feel there is something important behind your original blog and the intensity of the dialogue.
Personally, I do think the idea of narrative provides some of the middle ground. I don’t need a vision (which so quickly hardens into something fixed and idolatrous[which I like better than demonic, though it probably has that potential too]) if I have a story. The story provides a history and meaning, and points open-endedly in a certain trajectory. Probably old news – you’ve probably been all over this narrative thing in past blogs.
Thanks for the creative expression Dave.
good stuff here. nice discussion.
David, I like your definition of “desert.” I think we can be led there and I think we can go there.
I’m not sure we’re supposed to live there all the time. In the desert times the plant’s roots strive to dig deep for water. The result is that i the “good times” there is more fruit. It’s never just about finding water; it’s about producing fruit.
i apologize for diverting the topic, david. thank you for an interesting discussion.
Good grief, doesn’t anyone know Jesus was one of a large number of sacrificial god-men of the time? Doesn’t anyone know that the letters of Paul were written BEFORE the “Gospels?” Doesn’t anyone know that after the Roman version of the Jesus religion won the bloody debate because their political power persuaded Constantine to slaughter all the “heretics”, that the Church as we know it got established, and after about, oh, 2-300 years went by, the figure of “Jesus Christ” was constructed, modified, embellished, and polished??????
the desert is where real growth happens. It totally sucks to be in scorched earth, but I don’t grow in faith and trust when everything’s running smoothly… it’s when the winds are blowing and the storm is raging – that’s when I’m forced to look outside my own understanding and trust in the plan. When I look around and at that moment see no sign of God anywhere and still put one foot in front of the other and follow Christ. And to come out of the other side of the desert and look back and say, “Oh yea, I get it now.”
And sometimes I don’t get it. And won’t until I stand before Him and say, “Okay, now. Nice digs. So… What was up with that?”
I think God understands doubt. Didn’t he wire us to be curious and to seek answers? And do I trust enough to not get the answers I want or think I need, and still believe? Those can be scary times indeed. He doesn’t love us any less because we struggle.
Thomas was dear to Jesus. Even though He was frustrated by him, He took the time Thomas needed to reassure him and see him through his doubt. Even with that, for eight days He let him stew. Eight days that must have seemed like an eternity as Thomas listened to everyone else convey their own certainty of Christ’s appearance. But eventually that doubt was resolved and Thomas had his answer.
I like to think that He will do the same for us.
Galileo,
Good grief. Do you think none of us has heard those arguments before and decided whether or not they hold water?
How about a tensional perspective between confidence and humility? We’re in the wilderness and there is doubt and mystery, but it’s not as if we don’t know anything – after all, according to Dave, he knows a time is coming to admit we don’t know. I guess one point of confidence is that we do know something – human existence requires it – and one point of humility is that we don’t know everything – human existence requires it. We do know we’re in the wilderness (desert), but we’re not entirely sure when we’ll get out. We do know we have a destiny, but are not entirely sure when it will come.
lor.
i agree with you.
my wife has this idea to write a book called ‘8 days of doubt’ based around this whole idea… i am reminded to encourage her to get on with it.
np. “I wanted to warn us that a time to admit that what we don’t know is coming.”
now’s a good time!
Greg Laughery,
Well said.
Great post. I think that Bible inerrancy has been the biggest block to growth in the Christian church. It assumes that the writers of the bible knew everything there was to know for all generations in regard to God and knew how to perfectly communicate it. If Christians would simply look at the history of how the Bible was put together.
I would guess that its the fear of the unknown that keeps people holding on to some definition of “right opinion.”
Keep exploring the wilderness….
I know I’m coming into this discussion about two years late, but that’s the beauty of the nets – time shifting discussions and making the world smaller.
David, thanks for expressing some very real values I have about faith and orthodoxy. As a leader in a faith community, I struggle with those who know the truth and my own desire to find the Truth. I ask, “What is Truth?” …and I am quoted doctrine and dogma. My response comes from John 14:6: “Jesus is the Truth.”
In my mind, there is no way and infinite, omniscient God can be contained in a few hundred pages. Indeed, there is great truth there, but it is not exhaustive. Quite possibly there is still truth to be discovered in the word.
However, I believe there will be considerable forehead slapping when Jesus returns.
“Doh! I never thought of/considered that!”
I really like the idea that when we become complacent, we lose our desire to pursue further truth. In fact, I was going to suggest that some of my leaders (formal and informal) read this post. Then, as I read through the comments, I realized that I wouldn’t need to.
Right out of the chute, @Randy’s comments caught me by surprise. To me, the logic of the post is so clear, and yet, from an orthodox approach, I can see his point of view. However, it never would have occurred to me that this sort of thinking existed. I now have greater insight to the roadblocks I have faced over the last year. I now understand “their” perspective better.
Fascinating discussion. My eyes are more open. However, I see better how entrenched these thoughts are and how fearful people are of those who are willing to explore the edges and the dangers that exist there.