When Faith is not Enough

When Faith is not Enough by Kelly James Clark(Eerdmans, 1997)

After a fresh snowfall, the world seems a magical place. The brightness of it all is almost mesmerizing (at least it is out here where it doesn’t snow too much). After a couple of days the dirt and car exhaust tinge the white to such an extent that the dovish covering becomes stale and the spell is broken. When the dirt of daily existence darkens the magical landscape of life, faith is the thing that helps us endure the dingy and ugly parts.

I think it’s safe to say that every Christian encounters doubts about his or her faith at some time or another. In one of his essays in Christian Reflections, C.S. Lewis notes that believers, so inured with the material and physical in their everyday experience, are prone to wonder whether Christianity may be just one big delusion. He goes on to note that doubt works in the other direction as well. Often, atheists, in moments of reflective pondering, wonder whether or not there may be more to life than just what they can see and touch and taste.
The fact that there is so much that’s wrong with our world may leave many people to be in a state of continued perplexity over the question of God and his goodness. Clark states the main purpose of his book: "How should we understand faith in the midst of our ambiguous, ambivalent, and suffering world?"

Why is it that the (or at least, a) common response of the church is to blithely gloss over tragedies and simply trot out the common "happy" texts such as Romans 8:28 or Psalm 23? (Your experience in this matter might be different than what mine has been) Maybe all things don’t work out for the good of those who love God (at least not in this life). I’ve never heard Psalm 88 read in a church service; but it may be the one of the most honest of all the psalms. I often feel that people would be better off if they just realize that life sucks.

"Christians, of all people, should be honest about their plight, but they are curiously silent on the topic of honest and sincere doubt. It is, for many, an unspeakable sin."

Clark has written a very readable and thoughtful book on the dilemma of fear and doubt that Christians often face. He goes out of his way to be honest about his own problems and failings. This honesty has a way of drawing the reader into his discussion. In one anecdote he recalls how, as a college student full of intellectual hubris and "feasting my pride", he was humbled by an unpretentious, illiterate, hardworking janitor. As he puts it, "I was humiliated by his humility."

In two chapters, "Moments of Light" and "Moments of Darkness", he contrasts the vast distance between what we perceive to be God’s goodness, and what we experience by way of suffering. All of our good and uplifting experiences, the birth of a child, the beauty and wonder of nature, the exquisite design of the universe, all affirm our belief in a beneficent creator. I read somewhere that Albert Einstein, after hearing pre-teen violin prodigy Yehudi Menhuin play a concert, went backstage and exclaimed, "Now I know that there is a God!" That was before the Holocaust. And the hydrogen bomb.

"I realize, of course, that I may be have been deceived by all my moments of light – that all my glimpses of the divine are just illusion. Part of the terror of life in this age of uncertainty is the realization that all of my most fundamental beliefs might be utterly wrong. My entire life might be structured around a lie."

Could it be that Christians are a little too optimistic about their faith? There are those in the ‘prosperity gospel’ camp who don’t think so. God is the god of blessings. Any bad things that happen are a result of your own lack of faith. If you just have enough faith you’ll be blessed till you can’t take it anymore. Is this the proper view of faith? Clark takes a more realistic approach: "The resolution of doubt and the embracing of faith involve the entire individual, heart as well as mind. Commitment to the person of Christ entails much more than understanding and believing a set of propositions. Genuine faith involves the entire character of a person. Faith is a lifelong process of development that involves the complete transformation of the whole person. Fundamentally, it involves a terrifying and total denial of self."

Faith is a complex thing. Suffering and doubt linger heavily in the hearts of many people. There are no pat answers. Anyone who thinks there are is just fooling himself. The nice thing about this book is that it doesn’t try to provide pat answers. It tries to help the reader to think hard about issues surrounding faith and then tries to point her in the direction of viewing faith as a journey. This journey will contain periods of suffering for which the easy answers are no longer helpful (if they ever were. I’ve heard some pop apologists respond to the problem of evil by saying, "Well, if God were to eliminate all evil in the world, He’d have to eliminate you too, since you’re by nature a sinner." Easy to for them to say). We have struggles but we also have hope. It would be unbearable to live in a world of suffering with no hope.

Clark includes a number of good quotes from various writers, including this one from Flannery O’Connor: "What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is a cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God."

In the end Clark views the benefits of faith to be so great that "in spite of life’s darkness, faith ought to be pursued." Strangely, even though the book is titled When Faith is not Enough, he seems to be saying that in the end faith is in fact enough (this is not a complaint, just an observation).
Since I usually don’t know what I’m talking about, you should read the book for yourself.

wrong number

Someone called me. It was a wrong number. Why do people sometimes call wrong numbers? Do they know the correct number but simply punch an incorrect digit? Do they begin with an incorrectly copied number and then punch each digit correctly? Do people ever a call wrong number on purpose? One can imagine a lonely person, a rejected and despised soul, purposely dialing up a stranger simply to hear another human voice. Most times the person at the other end will politely inform the caller of her mistake. If called again, many will probably respond just as politely, possibly even laughing a bit, partly at the coincidence of two consecutive wrong calls, partly at the ineptitude of the caller (can’t you read numbers correctly?). The third time is when irritation creeps into the voice.
This planet we live on may be a wrong number. In the midst of a hostile universe, there exists a blue dot, an oasis in a dark and scary and lifeless galactic desert (though there is a certain beauty in deserts). On this dot there exist minds capable of discovering mathematical theorems, designing cathedrals and space shuttles, writing poetry and philosophy. These minds are also capable of the greatest of evils: torture, abuse, genocide. Why should such beings as us exist when there is scant, if any, evidence of any similar such beings elswhere in the cosmos? Scientists and non-scientists alike hold out hope that non-terrestrial life exists, but so far the search for extraterrestrial intelligence has come up short. In fact, given the factors required for intelligent life to develop, the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere than earth is very low (a book to read is Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee).
Perhaps we aren’t a wrong number. We may in fact be the one number which is dialed correctly. If indeed our planet is the only one that contains life, then we are the most fortunate of beings. We hold a privileged place in the universe. We can observe the cosmos and appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Only intelligent, sentient beings can do this. But can intelligence come from non-intelligence? It seems more reasonable to believe that we’re the product of an intelligence far greater than we can possibly comprehend.

the question of god

I just watched a recording of PBS’s special, The Question of God, on the religious views of CS Lewis and Sigmund Freud. While interesting at times, it can only be judged a disappointment. The book by the same name is a better choice for people who want to find out about the spiritual views of these two influential thinkers. The major problem of the show lies in the use of the discussion panel. The biographical segments with commentary by various people (eg. Peter Kreeft on Lewis) was much more interesting and informative. What we have are bunch of people, obviously intelligent, and asking good questions, but coming to the conclusion that there are no good answers to the problems brought up in the show. Of course when I say good answers, ‘good’ is in the eye of the beholder. One exchange (and the only name I remember is Michael Shermer’s) on the problem of evil was telling. One panelist, a theist, brought up free will as the solution to evil in the world as though (and perhaps one should not judge too harshly considering the limitations of the format, such as time constraints) that were the only answer available to be given. Another panelist, a skeptic, pointed out that free will would not explain the occurrence of natural evil and suffering such as that caused by earthquakes or hurricanes. There are two problems here. First, the impression was given that no other answer was available. Second, the impression was given that even if there were an answer, the panelists who were theists were not in possession of that answer.
One might ask if there are any good answers to natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides and the like). Well, that may depend on who you ask and how much certainty you want in the answer. My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful god to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how god would allow evil. Perhaps the models are inaccurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why god would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. I’m inclined to think, though, that few atheists would be convinced by a model provided by a theist. Why should they? Few theists, at first blush anyways, would probably not give up belief in god at the first instance of evil or suffering that they face. This type of problem goes both ways. But that doesn’t mean either side ought to give up trying to convince the other.
So, one model for looking at natural evil is through the use of the natural law theodicy. A theodicy is any explanation that tries to justify the presence of evil in light of a good and powerful god. An atheist may put it this way: If god is all powerful he would be able to eliminate all evil. If god is all good he would want to eliminate all evil. However, there is evil. Therefore, there is no good and powerful god. The theist could try try to backtrack and say that there is in fact a god but that he isn’t so good or so powerful as to eliminate all evil that people experience. Christian theists, however, would probably not want to go down this route. Christians believe that god is indeed all good and all powerful. (I’ll get back to this at a later date; not that anyone’s that interested, I’m sure).