Right Beliefs, Wrong Reasons
Sometimes it is frustrating to introduce yourself to theological issues. Most people who get deeply involved in theology quickly realize how much they don’t know. Confident seminary students enter their training thinking that they are going to breeze their way through as they have their prejudices confirmed by their soon to be impressed professors. After the first year, their countenance is soured as their confidence turns into an insecure angel (or devil) on their shoulder who says, “Who did you think you were presuming God called you into ministry?” They begin to realize that they came to seminary to find out how much they did not know! Some get discouraged and leave, others harden in their categories becoming unable to learn. But the best adjust their expectations, knowing that an admission of ignorance is a fundamental foundation to learning.
There is an old dictum to knowledge. It goes something like this:
There are four types of people:
1. The one who doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He is a fool–shun him.
2. The one who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know. He is a student–help him learn.
3. The one who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows. He is an unenlightened person–enlighten him.
4. The one who knows and knows that he knows. He is a wise man–follow him.
I would like to add a fifth:
5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.
This fifth category refers to those who have all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is very common in theological circles. I believe that it is prevalent within Evangelicalism as a basic creedal confession takes the place of doctrinal understanding. I know of many people who confess a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, but they really don’t know why they believe in this doctrine. I know of many people who believe that Christ rose bodily from the grave, but they could not give you even the most basic defense of their confession. Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?
The fidest (one who defines faith as a blind leap into the dark) would answer with an unqualified, “Yes.” The evidentialist (one who believes that evidence plays a vital role in faith) would say, “Maybe, maybe not.” I side with the evidentialist. There is a large chasm between assent to a proposition and being convicted of that proposition. And there is a fine line between emotional conviction and conviction of the Holy Spirit. To answer the question How do you know that Christ rose from the grave? with a “I just know that I know!” answer is both insufficient and, dare I say, sinfully neglectful of our duty to engage our minds. It creates an unjustified dichotomy between the mind and the heart.
“The heart will not accept what the mind rejects.” These words are attributed to Jonathan Edwards (although I have never seen the reference). Nevertheless, I believe this is true. The one who knows but does not know how he knows is in great danger of one day losing what he knew. Why? Because the justification for this knowledge is unqualified and insufficient. Creating a dichotomy between the mind and the heart is a self-defense mechanism for those who are truly insecure about their faith. They don’t have enough confidence in their faith to subject it to the scrutiny that the mind demands. For these people, an introduction of the mind’s interrogation to their beliefs is like playing the lottery. There is a chance—a good chance—that it will not survive, so it is better not to take that chance. They simply “know that they know that they know.” Or, as some would put it, they know because they have a “burning in their bosom”—that’s enough for them.
The problem with this fidestic approach to faith is that, in the end, everyone can claim this “burning in the bosom.” No one and no belief system is disqualified from its epistemological methodology. Two people with completely different belief systems can both have this subjective confidence with hearts on fire. Both can (and often do) claim that their conviction is from the Holy Spirit. Yet one of them is wrong.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there is a subjective conviction of the Holy Spirit. But I believe that the conviction that the Holy Spirit brings is based upon the objective realities of the truths He represents. These truths are not acquired by a sound method of meditation or a blind adherence to what mom and dad taught you, but by wrestling with the issues and coming to your faith on your own. There has to be a deconstruction process that allows the Holy Spirit to bring about a conviction that we can truly credit to Him. We don’t have to disassociate His conviction with our studies. It is not an either/or but a both/and. God brings about conviction through our studies. This is the medium He uses. Yet unfortunately we often justify our lazy minds by placing the blame on Him for our intellectual disassociation.
Having all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is not a good thing. The reasons provide the foundation for our beliefs. If we do not construct a method of inquiry that has integrity, our beliefs will lack integrity. If our beliefs lack integrity, do we truly believe them?
We must learn to deconstruct our beliefs. No, not in the postmodern sense of the term. Postmodernism seeks to deconstruct without the intention of reconstructing. They do this because part of their presumed construction says that we cannot reconstruct (which is self-defeating). We deconstruct so that we can truly believe. We deconstruct so that we don’t have a faith of hibernated fear. We deconstruct so that when our fortress is rebuilt, it can weather any trial, internal or external. Ultimately, we deconstruct so that we can glorify God by loving Him with all our mind.
I know that this is difficult for many to hear. I know that the proposition is a fearful one. We are much more comfortable in our naive existence. But we must graduate our faith and encourage others to do the same. We must have the right beliefs for the right reasons.
I believe that a failure to do so, from a human standpoint, sets people up for their journey away from Christianity. This is why you see me singing this same tune so often.
Friends, this is what The Theology Program is all about.
Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is in financial need. Please consider a small (or large!) tax-deductable donation. Thanks for visiting!
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Right Beliefs, Wrong Reasons?
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part 8b - What about all the divisions?
- Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God
- The Evangelical Epidemic of Theological Accountability and Discipline
- The Evangelical Epidemic of Theological Accountability and Discipline
Bill on 31 Jul 2008 at 5:32 pm #
Any good athletic coach will tell you two things build confidence (pistis): knowledge and experience.
What room do you make for spiritual experience? Is it okay in your view for someone to believe in God because “he walks with me and talks with me”?
Please note, I’m not talking about making inaccurate claims about scripture, truth or theology because someone “feels it is true”. I’m talking about simple believers. Surely you know the theology program isn’t necessary for absolutely everyone. Do you have a cutoff in mind, or a sliding scale?
My grandmother has never doubted her faith in God, no matter what she’s been exposed to in college, society or the media. Is she the anomoly? Or did she get just the right amount of knowledge?
And again - what is the place of spiritual experience in safeguarding believers from doubt?
In your view?
M. Jay Bennett on 31 Jul 2008 at 5:46 pm #
We deconstruct so that we can truly believe.
This sounds like a contradiction of Anselm’s doctrine of faith seeking understanding.
Is it a contradiction? If not, how does your thesis fit with Anselm’s doctrine?
Ranger on 31 Jul 2008 at 8:14 pm #
Michael,
“Postmodernism seeks to deconstruct without the intention of reconstructing.” Whereas in popular postmodernism this may be true, Derrida wouldn’t have agreed. He believed in deconstruction for the positive of leading toward a reconstruction.
M. Jay Bennett,
I think you may have misunderstood the post. You deconstruct in faith. The two terms are not opposed to each other. When you deconstruct in faith you find that your reasons for holding many beliefs were not justified. The beliefs themselves may have been true, but your reasons for holding them were not. You may not have proper understanding for your faith at all. So deconstruction in this sense is the very heart of Anselm’s suggestion.
M. Jay Bennett on 01 Aug 2008 at 1:58 pm #
Ranger,
Are you then distinguishing between belief and true belief? If so, does that mean the belief that precedes unjustified reason is false?
Michael wrote: “We deconstruct so that we can truly believe” (emphasis mine).
Lawrence on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:10 pm #
Thank you for sharing this. In the various churches that I belonged to,
I always tried to make sense of things only to find out that the church
leaders were less than supportive. For many years I thought that If I
“let the chips fall where they may”, I would discover that the problems
that I had were my own and that I was actually not saved. I admitted
to myself that I was living a lie, however, and went about finding out
the truth of what I believed. What I discovered after some time was
that the church leaders were quite happy to keep me in a state of
limbo and my every attempt to clarify things from the Bible with them
would wind up in regret that I had started the conversation.
I certainly would like to join a church, but, every church that we’ve (my
family and I) attempted to join with was led by elders and/or pastors
who couldn’t handle the idea that I don’t necessarily believe something
because they tell me to. Many expect me to accept their “authority”
in matters of belief simply based on their superior education or social
standing. Many times I had to sacrifice “just getting along” in order
to avoid selling out the truth.
bethyada on 02 Aug 2008 at 12:39 am #
I think the whole faith thing is misunderstood. Christianity is based in history. We believe it because it is true. Christ really died and rose physically from the death. Scripture corresponds to reality.
Jesus gives us access to the Father and we find him trustworthy. This is based on is faithfulness in times past. We can look to examples in Scripture to remind ourselves of his faithfulness (as the Israelites were to do for their children) and in our own lives.
Our believe in the reality of Jesus and the knowledge of the previous faithfulness of God means that we can then have faith for the things we cannot otherwise know.
Faith is our trust in God for the future based on his faithfulness in the past. We don’t need to have “faith” or “hope” that Christianity might be true. We have faith in the promises for the future that we have yet to see evidence of. For us that includes things like our resurrection from the death and eternity with Jesus.
Don on 04 Aug 2008 at 1:13 am #
Bethyada: “We don’t need to have “faith” or “hope” that Christianity might be true.” You hit the nail with that statement. To many people don’t understand that we have faith, because “it is true” based on God’s previous deeds.
They have plenty of “faith” that after death they will be left “undisturbed” for eternity. Talk about a “blind leap”!
Anyway, I’m with you!
George Radman on 04 Aug 2008 at 8:16 am #
“Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?”
[The motto of the White Horse Inn weekly program http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/the_white_horse_inn/ is “know what you believe and why you believe it.”]
———–
“There has to be a deconstruction process that allows the Holy Spirit to bring about a conviction that we can truly credit to Him. We don’t have to disassociate His conviction with our studies.”
[see Introduction to True Spirituality by Francis Schaeffer]
————-
“We however, deconstruct in faith so that we can truly believe”
[see Reading and Discussing Scripture and Teaching in Contradiction at http://pop.eradman.com/
Bill on 05 Aug 2008 at 12:28 pm #
Michael, I was really hoping to start a conversation. I hope my questions didn’t soud rhetorical. I’d really like to know how your thinking interacts with my comments.
Let me try and put it closer to your terms. Do you feel “subjective faith” is always, categorically unverifiable and/or untrustworthy? Secondly, do you feel that personal encounter with God is something real that we can have and trust/know that we had? And thirdly, if any particular christian ever has, even once, a profound sense of the Lord’s presence or voice, and assuming that experience is absolutely real, to what extent do you expect that experience might help such a person to resist any outside influences against their belief?
My own position may be clearly implied, but I’m asking because I’d genuinely like to hear your response. And I’d like to understand this post better, in that light.
Thanks for your considerations.
By the way, I’m getting a cut-off on the right side of my comments window. FYI.
Nathanimal on 12 Aug 2008 at 1:59 pm #
Everyday I have to face the reality of my existence. What I mean is that there are things that ebb and flow in my day. And some things never change. It is the things that never change that paralyze me and force me to be sober, sometimes to a fault. The pain is very undesirable yet I must make since for its purpose. I must find reconciliation for my head and my heart to why such things are a reality. I must deal with what is real and what true, because trivial things loose their value when compared to what prods me with affliction.
To what can I attribute this reality?
I have searched the scriptures and found much comfort to my adversity. At the same time, I have been introduced to a much more obscure and unmanageable God than the one I was raised to believe in. He does not come when I say come, and does not give me what I ask for.
Who is he then?
Thus my response to Michael is a thoughtful thank you! It is heartfelt and penetrating writings like these that give purpose and peace to my reality that I face. If it were not for this affliction, I might not know what I need to know. I would not pursue the right questions because of my desire to fulfill daily pleasures. But to my dismay, and to Gods credit I have come to know him more because of his Word. This dismay is the adversity, yet my spirit and His rejoice in it. It is His word that created us and it is that Book that contains live-giving wisdom that informs us of the reality of realities. This is where I have been introduced to what I should know, but did not have the ilk to do it. I am wretched, and helpless.
I now know what I should know because of him who saves. A gift—not that I can always see this gift as it aught to be perceived, but the fact that I am now aware of my inability to reflect the realities of what God truly accomplished in this world, I undeservedly am aware of what I need to feel, but cannot feel. There is a deadness in my heart that should feel what aught to be felt, in that the gravity of what Jesus really did is not felt to the degree that it should be.
Only when I began to listen to his Word, from His Word, did I begin to know how far I am from where I should be. I believe I am just now starting to walk down a road that leads to a true and everlasting reality. But I have just started.
Michael, thank you for your words of instruction and thank you for the teeth that they have on them.