The opposite of faith is… doubt… or certainty?

What makes our faith strong? Can you have faith and still have doubts?

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [Hebrews 11:1]

 Jesus said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” [Matthew 14:29-31]

While the author of Hebrews uses “assurance” and “conviction” when describing faith, many more passages in the Bible suggest that even the most faithful of those called by God stepped out more tentatively than boldly and struggled with doubt just as Peter did. Abraham left his homeland to follow God, but he still struggled with God’s promise for an offspring because he and Sarah were so old. Jacob feared encountering Esau after so many years because he worried more about whether Esau held a grudge than about whether God had also blessed Esau. Moses made excuses to try to get out of leading the Israelites out of Egypt. The history of Israel in the Old Testament is filled with times of humility that often followed missteps and misplaced faith in things other than God. 

Even in the Gospels, the disciples struggled to understand the assurance and conviction that called them to Jesus. Their struggle to understand who Jesus was came not so much from a lack of faith but from a certainty that the messiah must be something that was much different than what Jesus was. When Jesus called his disciples, he didn't hand them a scroll filled with requirements for discipleship. He helped them wrestle with their questions, often using questions and parables that challenged what they thought they knew. 

Maybe the thing that holds us back isn't doubt but certainty – in particular, an insistence on holding on to our particular concepts with a stubborn conviction that dismisses the idea that we may not have everything right. Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk recently wrote about Mistakes We Make about Faith:

We mistakenly understand faith when we…

Confuse having faith with having certainty….

Fail to recognize how much our fears shape our faith.

Think that having a hearty or mature faith means I have strong opinions about lots of different issues.

Trust in our faith rather than in the One who is the object of our faith….

Imagine that having faith will give us “answers” to life’s perplexing questions.

Forget that Jesus helped the one who said, “I believe; help my unbelief.”

Fail to recognize how much our personalities, experiences, and relationships affect the way we think about faith and exercise it….

Think that faith is only an individual thing and that I cannot ever be carried by the faith of others….

Presume that faith can only grow in religious soil, through influences that are specifically pious or devotional in nature.

Doubt is often equated with losing faith, perhaps wrongly so. Scot McKnight, reviewing a book called The Skeptical Believer by Daniel Taylor, suggests that doubt may be an element of faith. 

The Skeptical Believer. No, it’s not a contradiction in terms. It’s a simple, everyday reality for many people of faith….  Doubt happens to faith and to believers, not so much to unbelievers. It’s struggling with faith and in the midst of faith, not denying faith. It’s seeking to make sense of faith…. Doubt is misgivings about truth claims, in this case about Christian truth claims. 

Doubt may not be a sign that we don’t believe in God, but that we are struggling with someone else’s claims about God, or with our current concept of God. Doubt may mean that we care enough about our faith to wrestle with it. In examining what we believe and stripping away the fluff from the heart, we can come away with a better understanding of God and a stronger faith. 

Samantha Field, who writes about surviving spiritual abuse on her blog Defeating the Dragons, describes the dangers of not asking questions in an interview on the her.meneutics blog.

[Spiritual abuse] also happens when people stop asking why. Being handed a list of “this is what you should believe” is so very easy, especially when that list is handed to you by someone you respect. But when we stop asking questions, when we even begin to accept that asking questions is in itself a problem, that's when we can surrender our faith into the hands of someone who could misuse it.

…We seem to confuse "having faith" with "being certain." I'm no longer comfortable with feeling certain about anything; certainty, I've found, is dangerous territory. It also bothers me when we frequently resort to statements like "the Bible is very clear on this issue," or that a specific interpretation of a passage is "plain" or "obvious." This type of language seems almost designed to shut down conversation, or to dismiss the speaker's opposition.

I think it's important for us to stay receptive to new and challenging ideas. To honestly engage with a concept we don't agree with, and see where it takes us. Instead of digging in even deeper when our faith system gets confronted, if we took a second to empathetically understand their perspective, we could have a change of heart and a change of mind.

I know people who mistake their understanding about God or Jesus or their denomination’s declarations for the word of God. They make emphatic proclamations and, when challenged, say, “You’re disagreeing with God.” Samantha Field is right – that becomes a conversation stopper. It often reflects more about the person making the statements than it does about God, and it stifles more than it illuminates. 

Do you agree with the writers mentioned above that we confuse faith with certainty? Does faith guarantee certainty or does certainty undermine faith? Is there room for doubt in a strong faith? Can you have a strong, vibrant faith without wrestling with doubt? Which do you think is more dangerous to our faith – doubt, complacency, or certainty? 

Is social justice part of the gospel?

“In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: ‘Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.’"

- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963

This week marked the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. It’s an illustration of how Christians, based on their understanding of the gospel, can argue such different interpretations, and a reminder that politics and ideology strongly influence those differences. While this country has made progress since then, the debate about social justice continues. 

Some Christians say the gospel is only about redeeming sinners and not about social justice issues. But, if Jesus came to set into motion God’s kingdom on earth, aren't social issues part of that? Can we be "redeemed" while ignoring the plight of those who are poor or persecuted?

A debate two years ago between Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, and Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on the role of the church in social issues highlighted different perspectives within the Christian faith. 

Both agreed there’s a Biblical basis for social justice:

• Justice is an attribute of God and therefore God's people must work for justice.
• True justice is not just individual but always has social implications. Therefore, a true definition of justice must include "social justice."
• In order for Christians to be faithful to the Great Commission they must make disciples and teach what Jesus taught, and that means teaching Christians to be workers for justice.

However, they disagreed on whether it is an integral part of the gospel.

Al Mohler argued that, while justice is a good work that Christians should do, it is not the church’s mission. 

"There are many things that the church is involved with that are not essentially its mission but are nonetheless what Christ's people do precisely because they belong to Christ…."The Gospel is about how sinners who rightly deserve nothing but the eternal condemnation of God nonetheless are redeemed by His decisive act in Jesus Christ to redeemed sinners." 

Jim Wallis said that the gospel is about both personal salvation and social justice and they can’t be separated:

"Justice is integral to the Gospel itself," Wallis said.Conservatives and liberals each have gotten the Gospel wrong, Wallis added."Too many liberals have a social cause but have dropped the altar call -- no more conversion. … Too many conservatives have an altar call but no more mission to the world. We must move away from an either/or Gospel. It's time for both/and biblical thinking."

Does it make a difference whether we believe that social justice is just as integral to the gospel as personal salvation or that the gospel is about personal atonement and social justice is a good work we should do? The folks at Sojourners say it does:

If you say that the Gospel is first and foremost about an individual atonement for personal sins, you are quite likely to end up with a church full of people who don't want to go any farther.If an individual person is told that the Gospel is entirely about what it can do for her, she is quite likely to ignore the subsequent commands to actually do the hard work of following Jesus. It's what Bonhoeffer would call "cheap grace."

Even Dr. Mohler expressed concern that “a lot of Churches are REALLY bad at making disciples who actually do the things Jesus told us to do.”

If we focus only on personal salvation, I think we not only lose connection to the larger body of Christ in the world, but we also miss an essential part of what Jesus taught us: Not only are we to love God, but we are also to love our neighbors as ourselves. How we reach out to our neighbors in love becomes the light of Jesus’ presence in the world. 

“It’s not our words. Our words are not what’s going to stop the world in its tracks. Our words are not going to change the world. They’ve heard it all. …It’s not typically the music that’s going to stop the world in its tracks…. It’s not our buildings, as grand and beautiful as some of our church buildings are. It’s not the architecture that’s going to change the world. But I believe what will change the world is when we begin to love each other. And when we begin to love the world, and when we begin to reach out to the orphans and the widows, the lower income families in our communities …. When our houses are packed so full of love that we have to open up the back door to let it ooze out into the valleys and the suburbs and the city streets, when the world sees that kind of love, real love, they’re going to stop in their tracks, they’re going to say, ‘…Whatever you people have over there, you Jesus freaks, I want some of that… I want some of that Jesus for me if he’s doing all that.’”

- Toby Mac, intro to Love Is in the House

Is social justice an essential part of the gospel? If not, what is our calling as followers of Christ? Can we be "redeemed" while ignoring the plight of those who are poor, sick, or persecuted? Can you be a disciple of Christ without doing the things Jesus taught us to do? 

As you ponder these questions, here’s the full track of Toby Mac's Love is in the House:

Is Jesus being exclusive or inclusive when he says "I am the way"?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:6, NIV]

This passage and several more like it – John 3:18, 3:36, and 8:23-24; Luke 10:22; Matthew 11:27 – describe Jesus as the light/way/truth that leads us to God. Depending on your perspective and how much you consider them in context of the whole Gospel, Jesus is either the gatekeeper who keeps all but those who believe in him away from God or the guiding light who breaks down the barrier of sin that stands between us and God.

One perspective implies exclusivity; the other inclusiveness. I've seen those passages used like weapons of judgment and condemnation rather than as acts of love. Is that what Jesus intended? If you add context, Jesus also says “I have come into the world as a light” and “I did not come to judge the world but to save it” (John 12:46-47; see also John 3:16-17). 

Jesus’ mission wasn't to condemn, not even those Pharisees who had lost focus on God among all the legal restrictions. Jesus came to do God’s will: to show people a way to live in God’s love and to experience eternal life. 

God knows how hard it is to keep the commandments, so God sent Jesus to show what’s important (loving God and loving others). If we follow him it all falls into place. Jesus provides a revelation of God – one that is all we need to understand about God. 

“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” (John 14:10)

There are those who insist that not only is Jesus the ONLY way to God but, in particular, their specific interpretation and doctrine are the ONLY correct ways to follow. I've had people say I’m going to hell because I don’t follow such-and-such doctrine. Sometimes they might use polite terms like “I’m deeply worried about your soul,” but the point was made. I used to think they were narrow-minded, overly-condemning, and probably drive more people away from Jesus than they bring to him. I’m now more inclined to think they have good intentions, but are overly zealous in their interpretation. I’m still not sure they’re bringing in more people than they drive away. 

I believe our restored relationship with God and our salvation (from ourselves) comes through Jesus. But I don't presume to know how Jesus will reach out to everyone; nor do I believe that Jesus' loving act is only limited to the here and now on earth. I don't know how Jesus goes about reaching the millions (billions?) who died without ever hearing about him or who are raised in a culture that blocks him from the children. I have faith that, through ways I can't fathom, Jesus will reach out to all of God's creation and offer them the same gift of salvation he's given us. That, I believe, is in keeping with the Jesus I find in the Gospels.

I started out with the question: When Jesus says, “I am the way,” is he being exclusive (a gatekeeper letting in only a select few) or inclusive (a light who opens the way for us to know God)?

But, as I worked through the thoughts and notes that were mostly trimmed back to make this post short(ish) and sweet, another question keeps coming up: What if we spent more time as Christians emphasizing the inclusiveness of Jesus’ message – ANYONE who really listens to God and learns, will come to Jesus for more? What if we not only focused on that positive message, but had faith to believe it? Would we come across as less overbearing and exclusive in our approach? Would there be as many people alienated from God in the world today?

Is “Jesus is the way” a gate to keep out all but “true believers” or is it the key to opening the barriers we've put between us and God? Are we right in presuming it's the only way for people of all beliefs?

Thoughts?
Opinions?
Alternative interpretations?

The resurrection: now what?

After he was crucified, Jesus appeared alive first to the women who had come to attend his dead body and then to the other disciples. Jesus, who had turned their ideas of a messiah upside down, now shook up their ideas of death. In the 40 days Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurrection, I suspect there was a lot of rethinking about this kingdom of God Jesus talked about. 

What happens after the resurrection? Are we supposed to wait for the second coming or is this a call to participate in God's work now? What makes the resurrection so key to our Christian faith?

Discuss.

Here’s some more fodder for conversation: I know there are some folks have trouble believing the resurrection actually happened. It’s hard for them to get beyond medical science, biology, and experience, which tells us that someone who was truly dead doesn't just rise up and become alive again. The key question for me isn't whether it happened but what does it mean to those of us who believe it happened.  

What do we do about the resurrection? How do we respond to what seems impossible unless you believe nothing is impossible with God? The early church took Jesus’ teachings on the kingdom of God to heart as they gathered in fellowship and grew (Acts 2-4). But they didn’t really begin fulfilling Jesus’ call to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28) until they were persecuted and scattered (Acts 8). And, even then, they struggled to recognize that, when Jesus said “all nations,” that included the Gentiles as well as Jews (Acts 10-11, 15). It's evident that the early disciples were still learning what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God. Even today, we’re still learning and still debating what it means to be a disciple of a risen Lord. 

Some Christians distill the gospel down to accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and waiting for the second coming to set things straight. For them, everything in the Bible points solely to Jesus’ act of salvation and emphasis on anything else detracts from that. The emphasis is on being prepared (holy, moral) for the second coming. Other Christians see it as a call to action – to reach out to others and do whatever we can to correct injustices in the world. Their emphasis is on continuing Jesus' ministry on earth. Even among those who discount the resurrection, some believe Jesus set an example for living. 

In Christian Piatt's book Banned Questions About Jesus, Mark Van Steenwyk contrasts believing Jesus was a good teacher while discounting the resurrection with believing in the resurrection but minimizing Jesus’ life and teachings:

“Jesus had a lot to say about how to live in the here and now. Without the resurrection, we’d be left with a deeply challenging way to live our lives; a way that calls us to love our enemies, pursue justice, and seek peace. But we’d labor not knowing if we will be vindicated in our struggle. We’d go through life feeling the weight of our sins and the injustices of the world. That would be hard, but we could do far worse.

“It would be worse for us to gain hope in the resurrection of Jesus and use it as an excuse for inaction. Because Jesus has defeated death, he is the true Lord of the whole world. Therefore we, his followers, have a job to do; we must act as his heralds, announcing his lordship to the entire world. Jesus is raised, therefore God’s new world has begun, and therefore we are invited to be not only beneficiaries of that new world but participants in making it happen.” [p. 35]

Elsewhere in the book, R.M. Keelan Downton writes: 

“There is something important in the idea that Jesus came for me, but in a culture that’s already so focused on ‘me,’ we probably need a little more focus on Jesus as the Messiah or Christ who came to challenge the apparent order of the world and invite us to join in the process of revealing the true order of the world by proclaiming and embodying it.” [p. 11]

How does the resurrection shape your faith? How does it frame our call as Christians? Is the resurrection solely about God’s triumph over sin and death or does it include an invitation to participate in Jesus’ ministry on earth now? Where do we get the concept that we’re supposed to wait for the second coming for God to wipe the slate of this world clean?