“Give Me Doubt”? Religious Uncertainty In a Secular Age, Part 2 (Guest Post)

This is the second in a two-part series by my husband Caleb on doubt and faith in today’s Church culture. To understand what he is referring to by Charles Taylor and The Brilliance, see the previous post by the same title.

In my last post, I described and briefly evaluated The Brilliance’s musical piece, “Give Me Doubt” as an example of Christian thought regarding doubt in today’s secular age. I brought Charles Taylor’s philosophical insights into it, finally assessing all of it in light of biblical passages. In this post, I will continue the evaluation or critique portion of my series to conclude. 

Luther’s Small Catechism contains a quote that is famous in Lutheran circles. It reads, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him.” Of course, the only alternative for the sinner is the Holy Spirit through the Gospel,  as the rest of the quote teaches: “but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.” This part of the catechism makes me highly suspicious of what is going on the EP cited above. For one thing, the EP is asking for doubt where Scripture says to ask for faith. The father of a boy possessed by a demon told Jesus, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24). Galatians 5:6 says that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Throughout the New Testament, faith and love are placed together (e.g. 2 Corinthians 8:7; Ephesians 1:15; 6:23; Colossians 1:4). Doubt never is. This is the example set in Scripture, that sinners are to ask God for faith and seek it in Christ, especially if they are to love others. One cannot love someone fully unless He knows God by faith (see 1 John 4:7), so why would a Christian pray for doubt as though it were a prerequisite for love? This is certainly a product of today’s secular culture, and not of biblical Christianity.

I will give the benefit of the “doubt” (sorry) to The Brilliance by allowing the possibility they are referring to intellectual humility, nothing more. Intellectual humility is indeed a virtue. It is the acknowledgement that you do not possess all the answers to life’s questions. It is important not to be dogmatic on matters for which one does not have sufficient information. It is especially important not to identify the “armor of God” or claim God’s stamp of approval on what is in fact merely one’s own opinion. At its worst, to do so would be breaking the Second Commandment by using the name of God to promote a falsehood, or misrepresenting Him. Thus, if The Brilliance is merely saying that Christians ought not to claim that their political allegiance or other personal opinion is “God’s will,” when it is not specifically advocated in Scripture or plainly in natural law, well and good. This is a commendable use of musical artistry.

However, I have a significant problem with what is becoming fashionable today, namely, the relegation of doctrine to the domain of uncertainty. This can even apply to the doctrine of the Gospel, sadly enough. Christians who live in this secular age often act as if God has not spoken, or that He has not spoken with clarity. God says Christ saved us from God’s wrath (Romans 3:25; 5:9); people today deny the vicarious atonement, the doctrine that Christ paid the penalty for our sins so we would not go to hell. God says marriage between one man and one woman represents Christ’s relationship to the church (Ephesians 5:22-33); some Christians deny that marriage is between one man and one woman. The list could go on, but the point remains the same: those who claim to be Christians are talking as if their God has been silent.

Of course, The Brilliance never claims to deny any of the doctrines just listed. However, I do believe their EP was talking about doubt in spiritual matters, which starts to cast a shadow of uncertainty on the clear light of Scripture regarding things of God. The reason I think this is because of the subtitle of the EP: “A Remedy for Spiritual Violence.” This is a noble, if a bit overstated, goal for this musical piece, but it serves to show that the artist is not speaking exclusively of the limitations of reason. They seem to be arguing for limitations to faith as well, if not a redefinition of faith altogether. Is faith believing in something despite the evidence, or believing in something (namely doctrines) based on Scripture? “Give Me Doubt” seems to be suggesting the former definition.

The good news is that God has not been silent. God has spoken with clarity on all that pertains to our salvation. It is right there in His Word, the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture. If we struggle with doubt and have difficulty believing the Word of God for what it says, we can pray to the Holy Spirit to call us again by the Gospel and enlighten us with His gifts. Rather, than “Give Me Doubt,” may our prayer be to the Lord, “Give Me Faith in Your Unchanging Word.” In this secular age, which has impacted those within and without the church, this is the prayer we all can be praying.

Unnecessary Beauty

^{Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1615).}

I’ve always been fascinated by the description of the trees in the Garden of Eden: “And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9a). As wonderful as it is, it makes sense that God would put trees that were good for food in Eden; Adam needed sustenance to preserve the life God had breathed into him. But the phrase “pleasant to the sight” blows my mind. I love the thought of God making some trees just for the joy of seeing their beauty and sharing it with Adam and Eve. It seems so unnecessary and extravagant: superfluous beauty flowing from the beauty of God. 

Of course, none of creation was necessary in the strictest sense. As a triune being, God was fully sufficient in Himself. He wasn’t lonely or lacking in any way. He created the heavens and the earth as an extension of His love, not His neediness. (Michael Reeves’ book Delighting in the Trinity offers some great insights on this topic.) So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that God would create some things that are more beautiful than they are useful. 

But even though it shouldn’t surprise me, it sometimes does. When I enjoy those completely unnecessary gifts of God–like a bouquet of flowers or a bowl of ice cream–I don’t always realize how fitting it is that a triune God would give with such extravagance. I love how the Small Catechism’s answer on the First Article of the Creed speaks of the “fatherly, divine goodness and mercy” out of which God creates us and “richly and daily” supplies our every need. Can there be any better explanation for the existence of daffodils and coffee ice cream than “fatherly, divine goodness and mercy”?

Beauty and utility often go hand in hand. Functionality is, in itself, a beautiful thing. However, as is evidenced by many human works that have been designed solely for efficiency and utility, you can have one without the other. God could have created a functional world that was much less “pleasant to the sight.”

As a biology major, I spent a lot of  time studying the function of created things. Seeing the purpose and usefulness of intricate details in creation can lead us to awe as we behold the wisdom of the Creator. But I think those of us in the biology department might have gotten too stuck on the idea of utility sometimes. I remember a discussion with a professor and fellow students about whether there was life on other planets. The question inevitably arose of what purpose God created the other planets for. I’m glad scientists ask such questions because it promotes further exploration and often results in discoveries of unknown functions. But I also think we can look beyond the utility of planets and suggest that maybe God made them just for the joy of it. Maybe He likes making them spin and watching them follow the courses He designed for them, and maybe He wants to fill us with wonder at the bigness of creation.

The human appendix is another interesting example. What once seemed to be a purposeless tube off the colon is now thought to assist the immune system. In the past, I’ve tended to think of this discovery as a victory for creationists. But would it really undermine our belief in God’s creative work to find some things in creation that don’t have much utility? Would it be so bad for God to add an unnecessary flourish as He fashioned the human colon?

I realize that I started out reflecting on beauty and somehow ended up at the colon. My apologies if you don’t find the digestive system beautiful! Maybe I should take this as a cue to sign off.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on beauty and utility! Why do you think God made so many planets? Do you think we should look for a function in every part of creation?

Going to Hell through the Church?

A few months ago, my husband came across this artwork on social media. I have unsuccessfully perused the internet in search of its source, so please leave a comment if you know to whom I should give credit. Maybe the artist won’t mind being left unidentified because most of what I have to say about the image is not complimentary.

As I discussed in a previous post, we are exhorted to explain our neighbors “in the kindest way.” Therefore I’ll start by hoping that this artist truly loves the church. Perhaps the goal of this image is to warn Christians against the danger of falling away and to urge them to hold on to the faith. Maybe the artwork is supposed to visually represent what Hebrews says of “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away” (6:3-6). Maybe the artist wants viewers to recognize their continued need for God’s grace so that they do not grow prideful. 

However, I don’t think the image does a good job of communicating what went wrong for the poor silhouettes falling out of the bottom of the church into hell. It looks like their biggest mistake was walking through the church doors. It makes you want to grab the figures who are just entering and yell, “Watch out! Turn around! This is the path to eternal death!” This piece of art makes the church look like the biggest obstacle to people’s salvation. And I’m afraid some Christians would agree with that sentiment.

This is the exact opposite of how we should view the church. I was recently reminded by another blogger of how the church has been seen historically as a “ship of souls.” Is it possible to come aboard the ship and still perish like the figures in the drawing? Yes. But admitting that some people jump overboard and drown doesn’t change the fact that the church is the safest place to be and our only hope of life in the first place.

^{Christ in the Storm on the Lake of Galilee by Rembrandt (1633)}

I find it interesting that we confess in the Apostles’ Creed our belief in the holy catholic (or Christian) church. Why couldn’t we just confess our belief in the three Persons of the Trinity and leave it at that? Because God has chosen to save us through the church and as a church, not just as individuals in our personal little lifeboats. The parts of the third article all belong together. We confess, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” It’s easy to see the connection between the church and the communion of saints. Do we also believe in the connection between the church and God’s forgiveness? God could have chosen a different way to do it. He could have chosen to zap us all individually with His salvation. But instead He chose to work through the means of the Word and Sacraments, and by these means He gives grace through His church.

Here’s what the Small Catechism says about the Holy Spirit’s work through the church: “He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.” 

Some might think that this image warns against legalism by exposing the danger of doing “church stuff” without faith in Christ. Maybe that was the artist’s goal. If so, I appreciate the good intention and I admit that legalism can infect churches. But I can’t agree with this image’s solution, which seems to be that we should reject the church. If there is legalism within the church, there is most certainly legalism when Christianity tries to exist without the church. What are we left with when we remove the church with its preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments? Whatever form the remaining Christianity takes, it will have to rely on works of some sort. The church is where God’s grace is.

What do you think? Do you have other ideas about what this artist might be trying to communicate? What do you believe about the relationship between the church and salvation? Is the church a “ship of souls” or a threat to souls? Please share in the comments.