Doubt about Doubt

Many of us are drawn to stories of Christians who have struggled with doubt during tough times in their lives, and we are inspired by their journey and willingness to ask the tough questions as they seek answers. As of late, there has been an uptick in the number of books and blogs about doubt. I, however, have my own doubts.

To some, doubt is viewed as almost a virtue, something to be celebrated and used like buckshot against every sacred cow in Christendom. Not sure whether heaven exists? Great, neither are they! Should Christians have sex before marriage? Maybe, they'd love to discuss. Is the Bible just a bunch of writings that we subjectively interpret and take what we like? Pretty much, so don't you dare criticize progressive views on homosexuality or you’ll be directed to verses about head coverings and such. Of course, don't you dare mention the word "apologetics" to them, or you'll be accused of peddling "easy answers." All in all, they might be more comfortable with questioning the Faith than growing in faith. It’s a sad spectacle: a support group for the theologically infirm without any plan on how to get patients back on their feet.

Doubt is a valley every Christian will travel through on the journey to the mountaintop, but the Doubt crowd seems more interested in setting up camp at 200 feet below elevation.

Doubting Christians in an Age of Disbelief

Been a lot of talk about Christians and doubt on the blogosphere.

A few months ago, a Christian blogger gave an interview of another Christian on the subject of doubt. The question was posed, "If heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?" The answer was, "I think it's wonderful, first of all, that you start the question "If heaven exists," because lots of people will think you can hardly be a Christian at all just for including that clause. I love it."

It reminded me of two schoolkids giggling over a curse word. That being said, there is nothing wrong with asking questions, but its sad that some Christians have elevated this to some sort of status symbol.

I'm skeptical of the narrative that the trend towards doubt by young Chrisitians is part of a larger rejection of evangelicalism, a disillusionment of Evangelicals supposed failure to ponder the "tough questions" as they say, (whatever the heck those questions are, because the critics usually don't bother to state them).

I don't doubt the horror stories of some about the church they grew up in, but the current trend (fad?) might have as much to do with their being influenced by secular culture than the supposed fault of evangelicalism as a whole for failing to ponder that which must not be pondered. Fact is, some people just don't like the answers. Who wants to be out there saying two guys can't love each other? That's so Moral Majority. Better to focus on the environment and the poor (apparently those Biblical passages aren't subject to interpretation like the verses on homosexuality supposedly are), which is what the evangelical critics seem to be doing today.

Neither do I believe that it is part of some overarching embracement of "relativism." I never bought off on the "relativism" v. "absolutes" thing, because when it comes right down to it, liberal theology (and secular belief and practice) is rife with its own set of absolutes (Jesus, if he ever existed, is not the way the truth and the life, discrimination is wrong; we should always help the poor, protect the environment, champion the rights of minorities, fight for gay marriage, support divestment in Israel, whatever, etc.).

I see the movement towards doubt among Christians today as little more than selective relativism packaged as post-evangelical intellectual maturity. Unlike other fads, such as parachute pants and Miami Vice, this is one isn't necessarily harmless.

Terrorism: Big Risk or Big Hype?

Interesting post from author Phil Cooke, who references studies demonstrating that the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack is about the same as being killed by a tornado. While acknowledging that we have to protect ourselves, he states the following:

A little intelligence and a few drops of courage remind us that life is full of risk, and that of all the risks we confront in America every day, terrorism is a very minor one. Taking prudent steps to reasonably minimize the tiny threat we face from a few fanatic ciminals need not grant them the attention they crave. Continuing to play "Terrorball," on the other hand, guarantees that the terrorists will always win, since it places the bar for what counts as success for them practically on the ground.

I generally disagree.

He uses the term "tiny threat," but terrorism seemed like a "tiny threat" on Sep. 10, 2001. True, you probably have a greater chance of being mugged on the Metro in New York than blown up in a plane over New York, but the focus of our concern should not be about the number of attacks increasing or the theoretical possibility of one occurring. What should cause us continued concern is the magnitude of such potential attacks. One bomb goes off in a plane at 20000 feet and 200-300 people are pretty much dead, period.

However, the carnage is not just limited to those within the blast radius. Terrorism can cause political unrest or even spark a war, with more resulting loss of life. Israel v. Hezbollah, U.S. v. Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. WWI was sparked by one terrorist act, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. There is also a real chance of terrorists using nukes. Hasn't happened yet, but then again, we didn't think they would use planes as guided missiles. Does anyone believe that there aren't terrorists and rogue nations out who would like to see a mushroom cloud over D.C.?

I agree that civil liberties are always a concern, but I don't see a real tension between civil liberties and the Patriot act-type measures that even Democrats supported (until the election year, in which they caved to left-wing concerns). I hear a lot of rhetoric but little substance on the "we're losing our civil liberties" front. Where are the documented instances of people losing their right to freedom of speech, press, religion or association because of legislative initiatives in Congress over the last 10 years?

Balance is important, but I believe that we are achieving that, even now in spite of Pres. Obama's earlier dovish campaign rhetoric. Sure, he generally refuses to use terms like "war on terror" and made a rather ridiculous allusion to the underwear bomber being a product of an impoverished country, but this type of stuff is just window dressing for the benefit of the Moveon.org types. When it comes down to it, Pres. Obama is not surprisingly following in the footsteps of W. on Gitmo, Iraq, and other security-related fronts. It's easy to say one thing at a campaign stop in San Fransisco, it's quite another when you are sitting at the Resolute Desk and forced to think about the security of the Nation.

Frankly, I've seen more questionable concerns over civil liberties coming from the Obama admin than Bush, i.e. when the Obama admin who urged citizens to actually contact the White House if they learned of people supposedly distorting facts on health care. The White House was forced to end it soon after. And wasn't it the Obama admin (Dept of Homeland Security) who signaled out pro-life veterans as potential terrorist threat groups? Again, an apology was issued, but only because of the backlash. This sort of political profiling should be disconcerting to everyone, no matter what your party affiliation.

That didn't take long

After the tragedy in Haiti, Pat Robertson *said (see below) that it was God's judgment for a supposed pact with the Devil back in the 18th century. I suppose God must not have learned about the deal until only recently. Perhaps he wasn't cc'd on the original correspondence.

National Review does a good job pointing out the fallacy of this kind of reasoning. NR probably didn't need to, but it's worth reading just the same. I would quibble with the writer's implication that Robertson is hard of heart and deaf to people's suffering - after all, Robertson's "Operation Blessing" is out there helping people as we blog, as Operation Blessing has for many years in response to suffering, but that being said, he deserved the thrashing he got.

Christian Broadcasting Network is in damage control, releasing a statement that he didn't really say what we all know he said.

Pat Robertson should really be irrelevant by now, but I guess he can't keep himself from reaching for the spotlight. You would think after being burned so many times, he'd stop.

Here's another thoughtful critique from a blogger.

(*Note: some Robertson defenders have rushed to point out that Robertson never actually used the term "God's judgment." Congratulations. They are all winners in the Bill Clinton "What the Meaning of Is Is" Award for Achievements in Grammatical Technicalities.