Dealing With
Doubt

by Gary R. Habermas
With an Appendix by Ronald T.
Habermas
Originally published by Moody Press: Chicago (1990)

This is an electronic
copy of the entire book.

Table of
Contents:

Preface

Introduction:
Some Crucial Groundwork
Identifying
Doubt
Factual
Doubt
Emotional
Doubt
Volitional
Doubt
When
God Does Not Answer
Jesus
As A Living Person
The
Testimony of the Holy Spirit
Heaven:
A New Perspective on Life
Conclusion

Appendix:
Developmental Theory and Doubt (by Ronald T. Habermas)

Preface

The opportunity to write this manuscript came chiefly as the result of
two extended speaking engagements. The bulk of the material was written to
complement the Spring Lectureship which I presented at Western
(Conservative Baptist) Seminary in Portland, Oregon. Those lectures,
entitled "Christian Doubt: Toward Resolving a Painful Problem," comprised
most of Sections I and II of this volume.

The remainder of the manuscript (Section III, in particular) was
completed during a lectureship in an adjunct study program at Wycliffe
Hall, Oxford, England. One of the lectures there was similarly devoted to
the subject of doubt.

I benefited personally from my interaction with those from both groups
during this lecturing and writing. The week at Western Seminary, at the
invitation of Professor Gerry Breshears, provided an excellent time of
interaction, including meetings with administration, faculty and students.
The three weeks at Oxford provided an intensely personal setting for the
integration of living and learning. The interaction with the students was
especially gratifying. I would like to deeply and sincerely thank all
those who made possible both lectureships, and the writing of this
manuscript.

Incidentally, if it is possible to judge from the responses of those
involved in these and other discussions on this topic, the issue of doubt
and its resolution is one with which many Christians struggle. It is my
hope that this volume will be especially helpful for those who are either
working through such uncertainty themselves or who are assisting others in
such a process.

Gary R. Habermas Oxford, England 11 August 1988

Chapter
I
Introduction: Some Crucial Groundwork

Doubt, manifested in many forms from the assurance of one's salvation
to factual questioning, is certainly one of the most frequent and painful
problems which plague Christians. These studies propose to deal,
successively, with the general topic of doubt as experienced by believers,
and then, chiefly, with practical suggestions for the possible resolution
of each of three prominent types of doubt. Afterwards, we will examine
several pertinent issues which might potentially be of further assistance
to persons experiencing such uncertainty.

Although we will discuss some theoretical issues, our chief purpose is,
through the usage of practical language and suggestions, to concentrate on
the healing of believers who struggle with doubts. This may refer both to
those who read the book themselves and to those who use some of the ideas
to help others with doubts. To this end, this book is written to
Christians and so will not attempt to argue for the truth of Christianity,
although endnotes will frequently list some relevant sources which do a
commendable job of introducing the reader to the area of apologetics.

A. Definition and Nature of the Problem

Doubt of various sorts is portrayed somewhat regularly in the New
Testament, both in narrative and doctrinal texts. No fewer than seven
Greek terms speak of some aspect of the issue with diakrino being used
most frequently, often indicating uncertainty or hesitation between
believing and not doing so.1 For our present purposes, I will define doubt
more specifically as a lack of certainty concerning the teachings of
Christianity or one's personal relation to them.

Doubts concerning the ideas or persons most important to us might be
called an almost universal fact of life. One could well question how many
Christians have not doubted, at least at certain times in their lives.2
Based on numerous analyses of human behavior, scholars have noted that
doubt of various types is a constant companion throughout life and is
common to human experience. Speaking specifically of religious
uncertainty, one researcher remarks: "We come into the world with question
marks in our heads . . . . The question marks in our heads are never fully
erased."3 And lest someone think that non-religious persons are different,
C. S. Lewis' personal comment is very instructive here:

Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the
whole thing looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist I had moods
in which Christianity looked terribly probable.4

Uncertainty is common to human existence, but dealing with it is
complicated both by the fact that there are different species of doubt and
because each of the types frequently involve more than just that one area.
Thus, there is a tendency for doubt to "spill over" into other elements of
human experience. Theoretically, the fact that persons are whole rather
than fragmented argues that various doubts involve the entire person to
some extent. Practically, one usually notes that such is often the case;
doubts overlap and more than one type is frequently present. Yet, proper
identification of the primary form is still a major step in the healing
process.

Consequently, dealing with doubt is an interdisciplinary undertaking.
While factual doubt may require the expertise of the apologist or
philosopher, emotional and mood-related doubt will have more to do with
the psychologist, psychiatrist or counselor. Questions pertaining to the
will are perhaps best addressed by theologians. And the more that I deal
with the subject, the more I recognize that sociological, anthropological
and educational insights are examples of other areas which are also
crucial at various points. So there are certainly elements of doubt which
require a multidimensional effort.

Accordingly, two important disclaimers need to be offered at this point
so the reader can be sure not to misjudge the present product. First,
while I am more confident in dealing with areas having to do with
apologetics, philosophy or philosophical theology, I am far from being an
expert in psychiatry, psychology or counseling. Here I must rely on my own
study and interaction with professionals in the other disciplines. And
addressing an audience which involves persons who are trained in these
areas, I can only admit my lack of expertise and open myself to the
observations of others.

However, at the same time, if the subject is to be approached by a
single individual at all, it will almost assuredly be a person who cannot
deal in an expert way with all of these subjects and specializations. So I
will go on record by saying that, while my own training is in the areas
just identified above, I will at least endeavor to address the others for
the sake of attempting to minister to hurting people. It is this need to
be practical that motivates me to write on a subject which could possibly
be the single most common problem among Christians. So if I err in my
conclusions, I humbly ask your forgiveness and invite your comments.

Second and somewhat related, I am not qualified to offer any
psychiatric or psychological counseling and my comments should not be
construed as attempting to do this. My purpose is to deal with the
phenomenon of doubt and while this frequently involves such conditions as
depression, anxiety or medical factors, it must be understood that I am
only qualified to offer advice concerning such healing of various forms of
Christian uncertainty, not the psychological or medical conditions such as
those just described. I would recommend that the latter be dealt with by a
Christian professional in that area. But at any rate, the treating of
these last issues is not within my expertise.

It is this last issue of healing that is the primary concern in this
treatment. Theory will certainly be presented and is crucial at several
important junctures. But it is my chief desire that Christians will be
better informed and able to both deal with their own times of doubt and
those of other believers.

B. Common Misconceptions Concerning Christian Doubt

Doubt is very frequently viewed by Christians in a negative light. One
common attitude is that relatively few believers have this problem (and
those who do usually keep quiet about it). It is often charged that true
believers never doubt at all or that being uncertain of one's beliefs is
always bad and cannot produce any positive results. These and other
misconceptions appear to be fairly widespread.

1. Christian Doubt is Uncommon

If one works very long with doubting Christians, one may get the strong
impression that many believers who have experienced uncertainty seem to
think that they are a distinct minority. Similarly, one is frequently
impressed that believers often do not wish to admit the presence of such
doubt, a view which probably contributes much to the continuance of the
mistaken notion that they are alone in this problem.

It was mentioned above that there is some reason to believe that doubt
of various kinds is an almost universal fact of human existence. Os
Guinness asserts, "It is not primarily a Christian problem, but a human
problem . . . . The root of doubt is not in our faith but in our
humanness."5

So how common is Christian doubt? The "humanness" of the phenomenon
would suggest that it still is a very regular problem. Several popular
treatments make this point clearly. Mark Littleton answers the question by
saying that, "Doubt hangs its hat on all Christians. None can honestly say
they've escaped it."6 John Guest holds that all Christians were once
agnostic in that they moved from unbelief to belief. Some Christians
remain in a semi-agnostic condition even after salvation.7 Stephen Board
thinks that there may at least be some truth to the saying that unless a
person has never doubted, he has never truly believed. In this sense, the
Christian's intellectual struggle can produce one's deepest convictions.8

More technical writers also agree, such as Karl Barth's statements that
all Christians struggle with doubt. Speaking of a character trait which
causes such uncertainty, he states that "no Christian (and likewise no
theologian) can altogether rid himself of this flaw."9 Later, he points
out that "No theologian . . . should have any doubts that for some reason
or other he is also a doubter."10 Interestingly, Barth also muses at how
easy it is to question God's existence on occasion, even when one knows
better.11 Clark Pinnock adds: "I know what it is to doubt and question.
And I suspect that every Christian who takes the time to think seriously
about his faith does so, too."12 Later he warns the new believer to expect
to experience the same problem.13

In terms of popular statistics, Bill Bright writes that of the tens of
thousands of persons who have attended Campus Crusade's various training
institutes, up to 25% regularly indicate their doubts concerning their own
relationship to God.14 Even if this was the only subject which Christians
wondered about, it would still be a significant estimate. But when other
matters of uncertainty are also counted, such as questions pertaining to
unanswered prayer, or why Christians suffer, or theoretical questions
about the faith, or mood-related issues, I think it is plain that few (if
any) Christians completely escape the far-reaching claws of doubt.
Although by no means constituting scientific surveys, when I question my
large introduction to philosophy classes I regularly find that about
70-90% of all of these hundreds of students are even willing to publicly
admit that they have experienced doubt in some form.

At any rate, it should be apparent that the attitude that doubt is
uncommon among Christians misses the mark. Especially when the many faces
of doubt are remembered, it would appear to be futile to deny the problem.
In fact, there seem to be good reasons to hold that doubt may be one of
the most widespread problems among Christians today. This provides all the
more reason to attempt to solve the dilemma.

2. True Believers Never Experience Doubt

Some assert that real believers never doubt, since doubt is said to be
the opposite of faith. It should help us at this point to remember our
opening definition, for while it is true that uncertainty affects faith,
they are not opposites. The counterpart of belief is unbelief, while we
have seen that doubt might be described as hesitation between two
positions. So initially it must be pointed out that, at least by
definition, there is nothing which keeps true believers from struggling
with uncertainty or nothing which causes doubt to contradict faith. It is
true that doubt may progress to where it may challenge one's very faith,
but the failure to believe is unbelief or disbelief, not doubt. Guinness
notes that the attempt to make doubt into unbelief is a contradiction in
terms because it appears to make one's questioning choose sides (in this
case unbelief) when doubt in its very essence remains between two
positions. 15

Barth is in agreement at this juncture, asserting that "doubt does not
mean denial or negation. Doubt only means swaying and staggering between
Yes and No. It is only an uncertainty . . . ."16 Littleton
concurs:

But doubt is not the opposite of faith . . . . doubt
suggests that there is a lack of faith somewhere, but a person can doubt
and still have a perfectly sound trust in God. Doubt is rather a state
of uncertainty, a spiritual fork in our road.17

But for many Christians who might raise this second objection, there is
a more important consideration than the issue of definitions. The question
of what Scripture teaches is crucial here and it also supports the view
that true believers can experience doubt. In both the Old and New
Testaments, believers clearly express wide ranges of questioning,
especially on such topics as pain and evil, God's personal dealing with
His people and the issue of evidence for one's belief. On each of these
subjects, doubt is clearly expressed by prominent believers.

For example, the story of Job is well known, but I think few realize
how this righteous man actually charged God with misconduct on several
occasions, and just how pointed some of his criticisms were in
actuality.18 Likewise, several psalmists also experienced serious
quandaries and even, on occasion, cried out to God not just about certain
problems, but actually blamed Him with what they considered to be
mistreatment and His breaking of His covenant with Israel.19

While these Old Testament passages certainly evidence some of the facts
of doubt enumerated earlier in this chapter, such expressions are not
absent from the New Testament, either. In an apparently little known
episode, John the Baptist was in prison awaiting what would later be his
death (Matt. 11:1-11; Lk. 7:18-30). He sent two of his disciples to Jesus
to ask a twofold question. John wished to know if Jesus was the Messiah or
if he should be looking for someone else. Such is simply an amazing
incident and is very similar to some queries about which we hear in the
last half of the Twentieth Century. It is difficult to know exactly what
was on John the Baptist's mind, but it is very likely that his doubt was
prompted by emotional circumstances surrounding his imprisonment.

Jesus' response is just as remarkable. Instead of rebuking John for his
doubt, Jesus told John's disciples to return and relate to him the
miracles which Jesus was performing (Matt. 11:4-5: Lk. 7:21-22). Jesus had
basically answered John the Baptist's question concerning His messiahship
in the affirmative. And after an exhortation not to be offended because of
Himself, Jesus called John the greatest man ever born (Matt. 11:6-11; Lk.
7:23-28). So far from chastising John, Jesus both answered his questions
with evidence and then complimented him during the time of his doubt! This
narrative should convincingly show us that believers sometimes do have
times of uncertainty and questioning.

Another New Testament example is the passage which describes the
outspoken challenge of "doubting Thomas" (Jn. 20:24-29), who declared that
he would not even believe unless he first saw the resurrected Jesus
himself. Although Jesus rebuked Thomas for his failure to believe the
eyewitnesses who had seen him after His resurrection, the point here is
that Thomas had expressed a rather serious doubt (if not unbelief20).
Jesus, once again, provided some evidence but warned Thomas that such
"special" treatment ought not be sought after. For whereas John the
Baptist presumably believed after Jesus' miracles were reported to him by
those who had witnessed them, Thomas refused to believe the same kind of
testimony, requiring a personal appearance of Jesus.

It would appear to this writer that the Old and New Testament examples
are sufficient to show that true believers in Scripture have doubted,
thereby buttressing the earlier definitional points. But in a strange
turnabout, however, our discussion indicates that the objection that true
believers never doubt could itself actually cause two major problems.
First, this misconception can cause great harm to believers who do
experience uncertainty. As Guinness states, "No misunderstanding causes
more anxiety and brings such bondage to sensitive people in doubt."21 I
recall a case where a young man came to see me in emotional turmoil
because some friends had told him that his doubts of assurance obviously
proved that he was not a Christian. Some simple techniques for dealing
with emotional doubt (which are presented below) were sufficient for him
to deal with this situation. As is my usual practice, I checked with him
several times afterwards, the last occasion more than a year later and he
testified that he had not experienced any real doubt again. But this was
potentially a long and painful situation for him if the untruths had not
been corrected.22

Second, this objection actually overlooks an important concern about
doubt. That is, all doubt ought to be taken seriously and dealt with
accordingly. Just because uncertainty plagues most believers at some time
is no reason to take it lightly. And just because doubt is not the same as
unbelief does not mean that it cannot affect one's faith adversely,
especially if it is allowed to grow and spread. By God's grace, such
questioning needs to be identified and dealt with accordingly.

3. Christian Doubt is Always Bad

Another frequent claim is that doubting is always a negative sign and
that it cannot ever bring about positive results. But this is the exact
opposite of the conclusion reached by Christian researchers who have both
fought against doubt themselves and have observed the healing process in
others. Charles Hummel asserts that, "A stronger faith can emerge through
a siege of doubt; both holiness and faith are forged in the fires of
temptation."23 Virtually every observer agrees that not only faith, but
Christian growth and greater certainty, conviction, and service can result
(and often does) from successfully dealing with one's uncertainty.24

In our answer to the last objection, it was pointed out that several
believers in both the Old and New Testaments experienced doubt. In some
instances the complaints against God appear out of the ordinary and
amazingly strong. Is there any evidence from these cases, in addition to
the scholarly testimonies above, which indicates that doubt can actually
yield good results? In the case of Job, his encounter with the Lord
brought about the resolution of his doubts, repentance and trust in God,
leading to his multiple blessings (Job 42). Even though there are numerous
Psalms which express doubts, sometimes it is the very questioning and
despair which is turned around to a positive attitude of praise (Ps.
42:5-6, 11; 43:5).

In the case of John the Baptist, it is presumed that he was triumphant
over his doubt, for in spite of it (and even during it!) Jesus pronounced
his great compliment about John (Matt. 11:11; Lk. 7:28). Thomas' more
radical doubt, in spite of Jesus' rebuke, led to Thomas' glorious
recognition of Jesus' deity (Jn. 20:28).

So even though doubt is a serious matter whenever it occurs, it can
clearly lead to good results including the triumph of faith and worship of
God. In the case of Thomas, if church tradition is to be believed at this
point, it was doubt which led to this disciple's later commitment of his
life to ministry in the Middle East, where he was martyred. At any rate,
it appears to be evident that doubt can lead to positive growth in the
believer's life.

C. Conclusion

Christian doubt, defined as a lack of certainty concerning the
teachings of Christianity or one's relation to them, is a very common and
painful problem affecting many believers. The subject is complicated by
the misconceptions and caricatures concerning doubt, which tend to
militate against the finding of solutions. The interdisciplinary nature of
the issue also makes it a difficult matter, for Christian doubt is very
frequently not just a factual issue, as is widely believed. As a result,
doubt needs to be identified as to its "species" and dealt with
accordingly.

The chief purpose of this volume is both to help believers work through
and conquer their own doubt and to provide them with means to help others
who are dealing with it. The curing of this dilemma for many Christians
would not only assist them in experiencing peace on a crucial topic, but
would hopefully also free them to turn their energies to service for
Christ.

Endnotes--Chapter I

1However, diakrino is also translated in other ways such as
"contending" or "judging." Other related words include meteorizomai,
dialogismos, distazo, aporeomai, diaporeo and psuchen airo. They can all
have similar meanings such as doubt, uncertainty, despair or unbelief. But
there is some variation among the terms. Meteorizomai indicates an anxious
state (but is used only once in the New Testament (Lk. 12:29), while
dialogismos is used of the evil thoughts which emanate from the sin nature
of man.

2If a personal illustration (for that is all that it is) is at all
helpful, in my regular discussions on the subject over the years, I can
only recall one person ever telling me that he had never doubted. Then
just recently, as I reminded this individual of his statement made a few
years ago, he hastened to point out that he had only been speaking of one
very specific form but that, including all elements of uncertainty, he had
experienced it frequently in his Christian life.

3Leon McKenzie, "The Purpose and Scope of Adult Religious Education" in
Handbook of Adult Religious Education, edited by Nancy T. Foltz
(Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1986) p. 11.

4C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Company,
1952), p. 123.

5Os Guinness, In Two Minds: The Dilemma of Doubt and How to Resolve It
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 39.

6Mark R. Littleton, "Doubt Can Be a Good Thing," His (March, 1979), p.
1.

7John Guest, In Search of Certainty (Ventura: Regal Books, 1983) pp.
36-36.

8Stephen Board, Doubt (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p.3.

9Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, translated by
Grover Foley (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 128; cf.
p.122.

10Ibid., p. 131.

11Ibid., p. 123.

12Clark H. Pinnock, Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p. 107.

13Ibid., P. 117.

14Bill Bright, How to be Sure You are a Christian (U.S.: Campus Crusade
for Christ, Inc., 1972), p.10.

15Guinness, pp. 28-29.

16Barth, p. 124.

17Littleton, p. 1.

18See Job 7:11; 10:3-4, 13-14, 20-21; 12:6; 13:21; 14:6; 19:7; 27:2.

19For some of the "tougher" variety of complaints, see Ps. 44:9- 26;
60:1; 82:2; 89:38-39.

20I think that it is certainly possible that Thomas was not a believer
before meeting the risen Jesus, especially in terms of his own statement
about his refusal to believe (Jn. 20:25) and Jesus' addressing him in
terms of his (new?) belief (Jn. 20:29). But this is a very difficult
question. If Thomas was not a Christian, this would affect the use of this
example in this section.

21Guinness, p. 27.

22It should be noted that both here and in other places in this book
where personal accounts are utilized, various factors have been purposely
changed to protect the identity of the individual(s) involved. Particular
details, such as gender, reactions and even some symptoms are frequently
altered specifically so that persons may not be identified. As a result,
descriptions which appear to correctly describe a particular person are
accidental in that no case is left unchanged. However, an effort has been
made to keep those characteristics which are integral to the illustration
so that a real correspondence between the problem and the answer is
preserved.

23Charles E. Hummel, Doubters Welcome (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1964), p. 16.

24Barth, p. 122; Pinnock, p. 108; Guinness, p. 16; Board, p.3; Guest,
p. 139; Littleton, pp. 1, 10-11.

Chapter
II
Identifying Doubt

The point has already been made that it is crucial to identify the type
of doubt from which a person is suffering in order to attempt to deal with
it. The primary reason for this statement is that there are different
varieties of uncertainty and, like medicine, different remedies are
applicable.

For the purposes of this study, we will divide doubt into three general
families. We will begin by discussing factual doubt, which is concerned
with the evidential foundation for belief. Here some chief interests might
include the trustworthiness of Scripture, the facts in favor of a miracle
or answering objections to God's existence. The second category is
emotional doubt, which is most concerned with one's feelings and
frequently involves more subjective responses. In this case the chief
issues might include the feeling that one is not a believer or how
Christianity is viewed when one is going through a mood. Third is
volitional doubt, having to do chiefly with one's will and choices. Major
questions here may involve weak or immature faith or the seeming inability
to apply known truths to one's actions.

There is nothing necessarily "sacred" about these three categories.1
But they have the advantages of being few in number, they do not appear to
duplicate one another, they correspond to different human faculties, and
many different types of doubt can be accurately subdivided under them.
Thus it will be my purpose in this chapter to propose numerous typical
expressions of doubt, each identified under one of these three headings.
This will serve both to reveal the purpose of these three groupings and to
provide representative doubts to which readers can perhaps relate.

Now it should be noted at the outset that there will be some overlap or
duplication in the various sub-examples of doubt. And in several cases it
is perhaps possible to question the category in which the example is
placed. So the exact configuration of these examples presented here is
definitely not the point of the chapter. Rather, our purpose is to provide
sample doubts, most of which are quite commonly expressed, and to relate
these to the three major categories with which we will be concerned
throughout this volume.

In categorizing the separate objections, we are not only interested in
the origin of the doubt, but also how it frequently manifests itself. The
latter query is perhaps even the determining one. Of course, personal
factors are critically important but cannot be factored except in a very
general way. An attempt will be made to define and categorize the doubt as
it might be expressed.

Several authors have entertained the question of why persons doubt
their beliefs and have arrived at numerous reasons.2 I have added a rather
lengthy listing of additional responses from my own experience in speaking
with persons who have struggled with doubts. Together, I think that the
causes of uncertainty enumerated in this chapter include a fairly wide
range of responses (without exhausting the subject). It should be remarked
that the separate causes for doubt will usually be stated in a more
general way (as opposed to specific issues). So it is not the specific
objection ("Why is there pain and evil?" or "Did Jesus rise from the
dead?") which is listed in this chapter, but the general categories which
might give rise to these issues.

A. The Root Cause

Just before attempting to delineate various kinds of typical
expressions of doubt, the overriding cause should be discussed briefly.
Doubt in its various forms exists, from a biblical perspective, because of
sin. As Guinness states the issue, "Doubt is human and universal. But if
we are speaking as Christians, we must quickly add that this situation is
a problem only because of the Fall."3 Whether uncertainty of various kinds
would have been present had man not fallen is one of those issues
concerning which it is rather fruitless to inquire. But one thing appears
certain. The issues would have become much more complex afterwards whether
they existed earlier or not. Human nature is certainly at the root of the
problem and various human factors provide the impetus for additional
complications.

Again, the fact that human beings are whole, rather than being
fragmented into their component "parts" is a reminder that uncertainty
generally affects the entire person. As a result, causes of doubt are
seldom individual but are interrelated with each other. Attempting to
unravel the moral, social, medical and psychological factors for purposes
of identification can indeed be troublesome.

At any rate, the multiple affects of sin and human fallenness provide
ample opportunities for doubt to originate and grow. This is graphically
portrayed in C. S. Lewis' celebrated volume on demonic temptations, The
Screwtape Letters. Here Lewis attempted to show, in fictional terms, how
the forces of evil schemed to ruin person's lives and turn them away from
God.

In one passage, Lewis describes how doubts can be caused in the area of
answered prayer. Here Uncle Wormwood advises his apprentice demon Wormwood
on an excellent technique for tempting Christians:

But you can worry him with the haunting suspicion that
the practice is absurd and can have no objective result. Don't forget to
use the "Heads I win, tails you lose" argument. If the thing he prays
for doesn't happen, than that is one more proof that petitionary prayers
don't work; if it does happen, he will, of course, be able to see some
of the physical causes which led up to it, and "therefore it would have
happened anyway," and thus a granted prayer becomes just as good a proof
as a denied one that prayers are ineffective.4

This scenario is typical of many types of uncertainty in that the
doubter perceives a situation where negative results are likely to occur
no matter what happens. Also instructive here is the importance of demonic
influence. Lewis warns believers that two opposite errors frequently occur
when this subject comes up: either demons are disbelieved or they are
stressed too much, as if all evil proceeds from their activity. Lewis
retorts that demons "are equally pleased by both errors and hail a
materialist or a magician with the same delight."5

On this subject, the more balanced biblical position is to recognize
the influence of demonic forces as a major factor (Eph. 6:10-18) and to
deal with them accordingly. In his popular pastoral treatment, Erwin
Lutzer recommends several steps in such a process:

(1) confess one's sins and pursue fellowship with God. In fact, Lutzer
states that "The most important defense against demonic attack is
righteousness, along with an effective use of the Word of God."

(2) Believers must exercise their delegated authority (from Jesus
Christ Himself) to battle the temptations of Satan, for he must leave the
Christian when confronted in the power of Christ (Js. 4:7; Col. 2:15).
Lutzer points out that often Satan must be dealt with directly by the
citation of scriptural truths.

(3) Christians must be patient and endure the conflict, realizing that
results do not always come immediately. The testimony of many believers is
that, ironically, it is in such times of trouble that God can really work
in our lives.6

So the original temptation, the corresponding human sin nature and the
continuing openness to Satan's promptings combine to form the root cause
of mankind's basic problems, including doubt. And if sin is the source,
then, conversely, God and His teachings are the answer. It is not the
purpose of this chapter to begin a discussion of cures for doubt,7 but
suffice it to say that the testimony of the New Testament is that the
healing of an individual's problems is performed by God and not by the
person.8 This will be a crucially important truth to remember when the
subject of a person's part is set forth in subsequent chapters.

B. Examples of Doubt

As pointed out above, it will be the chief purpose of this chapter to
list numerous examples of uncertainty, divided under the three grouping
briefly identified earlier (factual, emotional and volitional). Yet, the
purpose is not so much to attempt to categorize each of these types per
se, but rather to provide numerous different instances in an attempt to
help in the process of identifying doubts as a preliminary step in the
healing process. Once again, it is not specific questions which are
entertained here, but the general categories which give rise to them.

1. Factual Doubts

a) factual foundations: A common form of uncertainty is that which
questions the underpinnings of Christianity. Such might frequently occur
in the case of new believers who have not thought through many of the main
issues yet or even with more mature believers who are not sure of the
facts. A common scenario would be the inability to answer critical
accusations against Christianity due to one's lack of knowledge on those
subjects. In particular, the major issues here might concern the nature of
the gospel or other central beliefs.

b) sidetracked by pseudo problems: This variety of doubt occurs when
believers allow themselves to be concerned about issues which not only are
not central to the truthfulness of Christianity, but sometimes do not make
any substantial difference whichever view is correct. Pinnock notes that
such usually occurs when strong positions are taken where Scripture may be
noncommittal and where it is therefore legitimate for believers to hold
differing views.9 Examples here might include the date of the earth or
specific problems in eschatology.10

c) questioning intellect: This form of factual doubt is frequently
caused by the type of personality which enjoys problem solving. For some
persons, to be constantly studying an issue provides the needed motivation
to seek creative answers, thereby leading to intellectual growth. In other
words, this type of uncertainty actually spurs some individuals to work
out dilemmas which interest them, or to get to the root of practical
applications with the intent of finding which solutions actually work.

d) system confusion: Board utilizes this description to indicate doubts
which arise due to a believer's allowing his world view to be influenced
by non-Christian systems or where the believer does not correctly "label"
a teaching which would only be true if an entire rival view was also
true.11 Many doctrines are only as accurate as the world-view in which
they are held. Doubt may come from taking at face value statements such as
those which proclaim that belief in God is for weak persons who need a
"crutch" in life, instead of investigating the evidence behind the claim
itself.

2. Emotional Doubts

a) psychological causes: The most common cause of emotional doubts (and
perhaps even all types of uncertainty) stems from psychological states
such as anxiety or depression and, in particular, moods which persons
frequently undergo. In fact, in a certain select sense, psychological
doubt as a whole might be termed mood-related. At any rate, this brand of
questioning often masquerades as factual doubt but must be dealt with in a
different manner. I have spoken to many individuals who assumed that their
problem had to with evidence for faith, only to discover that the true
cause was their attitude towards the subject. Earmarks of this sort of
quandary will be set forth in Chapter IV.

b) medical causes: Doubt can also come from any number of medical
factors, including internal conditions such as manic depressive states or
diabetes on the one hand, or externally prompted conditions caused by the
consumption of alcohol or other types of drugs. To be sure, it is
frequently not an easy matter to decide which of such factors are
internally or externally motivated. But while the central cause is medical
in nature, doubts which originate in this manner manifest themselves in
chiefly emotional patterns. In one particular instance, a young graduate
student was constantly in need of counseling and tended to dominate my
office hours. Although we were definitely experiencing some success, I
noticed some symptoms which I thought should be checked. As a result, I
finally referred him to our counseling center for treatment. There he was
diagnosed as being manic depressive and was given appropriate medicine.
The lesson here concerns the needed input of the medical community on
various issues surrounding the treatment of doubts.

c) faulty view of God: To have a wrong concept of God can be very
instrumental in the formulation of doubt. And, of course, while it could
be argued that no believer would have a perfect view of God, some specific
patterns of thought are potentially more harmful than others. For
instance, to believe that God does not answer prayers, especially during
times of stress or that He is morally responsible for pain will frequently
lead to constant personal crises. So if, as Guinness states, assurance
depends on our view of God and His faithfulness,12 then this is certainly
an area which needs constant cultivation and development in the believer's
life.

d) childhood problems: Experiences which one undergoes in his younger
years can have a profound affect on later doubt. For example, child abuse
in various forms can make it very difficult for one to accept God's love.
Two cases of this nature stand out very vividly in my mind. Both involved
very intelligent young women who had been abused as children, one sexually
and the other physically; the latter still had at least one visible scar
to witness the fact. Both were willing (and even eager) to discuss the
problems involved but they had many sessions of discussion before
beginning to get control of the situation. Both women struggled with how
God could ever love them; it was very difficult to convince them
otherwise. Eventually the former, a student, found great relief through
the love of her husband, family and close friends. The latter experienced
healing through principles shared later.

e) old wounds: Somewhat related to the previous type of doubt derived
from childhood problems, this variety is caused by painful situations
throughout life. Breaking up with a lover, the death of a loved one or the
betrayal of a friend are examples of wounds which could cause a person to
wonder if he can fully trust God. In many respects the results of such
questioning are similar to that in the former category.

f) judging by feelings: A very common problem, especially with
Christians who lack assurance of salvation, comes from reactions based on
one's feelings. "Sometimes I don't feel saved" or "I don't have the same
feeling which I used to" are regular fare for the counselor. In fact, the
feeling that Christianity might not be true after all may besiege all
believers at some point. Here again, one is reminded of Uncle Screwtape
who challenges young demon Wormwood:

But there is a sort of attack on the emotions which can
still be tried. It turns on making him feel . . . that all his religion
has been a fantasy.13

One vivid case of this type concerned a pastor of a prominent southern
church who called to explain to me that his Christianity did not feel as
vibrant as when he first became a Christian. Although trained well in
seminary, he fell into some of the same pitfalls which he had probably
helped others through over the years. After a few discussions he realized
that his questionings were caused by his emotions, which allowed him to
identify the area on which he most needed to work. Only then did he
experience relief.

g) need for attention: In some cases, the expression of doubt is most
obviously due to the need for friendship and love, often from one who
feels that these are somehow lacking in his own life. Such is most often
expressed by a person who apparently wishes to dominate the counselor's
time and grows to depend on the interaction. The doubt could certainly be
real, but the need for companionship attention and love14 could be even
greater, to the point where the problem never seems to get solved.

h) lack of sleep: A commonly overlooked cause of doubt can sometimes be
remedied as simply as getting a normal amount of sleep. A biblical example
here is Elijah, who, when he experienced depression, laid down to sleep.
After Elijah had rested, an angel recommended food (I Kings 19:4-6).

One man who came to see me was experiencing some rather disconcerting
doubt. He was a leader in the Christian community, the type of person whom
one might think would be embarrassed if others were to know why he was
visiting me. After a little discussion we pinpointed the type of doubt as
emotional and afterwards probed for the variety. It became obvious that he
was suffering from a lack of sleep. After making an effort to get more
sleep on a regular basis (including going to bed one day and waking up two
days later!), he began doing much better. Soon afterwards he left the area
for a new ministry but kept contact with me over a long period of time.
Virtually every phone call I asked how his doubts were coming and he
reported that everything was "back to normal." This just illustrates how
cures for doubt are not always the typical ones!

i) peer pressure: I have long thought that one of the categories of
doubt which is seldom mentioned but is extremely important is the pressure
exerted on believers to be more moderate in their views. This assault is
not a frontal attack, but is one which can continue to build up to quite a
persuasive drone in its call to stop believing old "wives tales" in favor
of "modern" approaches. To be more like our peers is often a desire which
is difficult not to heed, at least in part. In fact the belief (whether
true or false) that few other intelligent persons hold our position can
produce devastating results, especially over a period of time. Our
emotions are particularly vulnerable. But the doubt which is produced
thereby generally professes no new facts, just the same old temptations to
change.

j) identifying with fiction: To read fictional writings can sometimes
cause us to be confronted with different kinds of ideas and persons.
Plays, television and movies about fictional persons, times and places are
even more graphic in their representations. But there is a subtle
temptation here to identify with these characters and view issues through
their eyes. I personally recall watching a popular fantasy movie where I
was so caught up in the evil being experienced by one of the heroes that
it temporarily colored my own perception until I perceived what should
have been quite obvious: I was witnessing someone else's conception of the
issues. But if such subtleties are allowed to go unchecked, one could
experience corresponding emotional doubts.

k) Christian hypocrisy: Doubt can sometimes be caused by observing the
beliefs and actions of fellow believers. Barth lists religious wars,
persecutions, inquisitions and questionable stances on such issues as
"slavery, race, war, women's rights, and social justice" as examples of
the potentially offensive beliefs and behaviors of Christians which can,
in turn, cause doubts.15 However, while to view what is believed to be
unbiblical positions is disheartening, it does not directly deal with the
issue of the truthfulness of the Christian world view at all. Perhaps we
need to be confronted even more frequently with man's failures; such could
be a reminder of both the sinfulness from which God has rescued us and
provide some impetus for further action.

l) forgiven sin: The fear that one's sins have not really been forgiven
is a cause for doubt in many believers. More specifically, the idea that
one has committed the unpardonable sin so that one cannot be forgiven
strikes even more fear in the hearts of others. One young man who called
me expressed just this latter sense of horrifying fear. He believed that
the very fact that he had suffered doubt from time to time meant that he
had committed the unpardonable sin! This person needed to learn that some
of the popular conceptions about doubt are themselves mistaken. So while
such quandaries can have factual ramifications, they perhaps more
frequently are manifested in emotional terms. And while a good exegesis of
relevant Scripture portions may certainly be called for as a crucially
important part of the cure, the emotional elements will frequently have to
be dealt with, as well.

m) anxiety about the future: It is not enough for Christians to be
worried about the present. To be honest, anxiety concerning the unknown
future has probably been a cause for fear in most believers at some time
or another. For some, it is manifested in the query as to whether they can
really "hold out" until the end. Again, a study of the Scripture and
perhaps some treatment of the emotional portion is needed in order to show
that this fear is misplaced.

n) judgment and Hell: Even in believers one frequently encounters the
uncertainty that, after all, perhaps it is still the case that one could
have done everything that the Bible requires for salvation (as far as one
knows) but still be sent to Hell. If informal surveys can be trusted at
all, this fear is very widely experienced by many Christians at least at
some time. And, as in the cases of the previous two types of fear, both
Scriptural exegesis and treatment of the emotional factors may be
required.

3. Volitional Doubts

a) weak faith: Oftentimes a Christian wishes to increase his faith or
perhaps desires to conquer some problem (like doubt) but simply thinks
that he is unable to do so because it is too difficult to believe any
further. In biblical terms, this individual can perhaps be said to be
wavering between two positions (Js. 1:6-8). During my own period of doubt,
I would have said that one of my chief struggles was with the issue of how
to increase my faith.

b) immature faith: Sometimes faith suffers from a lack of development,
often due to factors in operation when a person first committed his life
to Christ and from the corresponding wrong ideas concerning that
experience. For instance, perhaps the individual was very young at the
time of his conversion, or later wondered if he was at all coerced during
the process. Others are troubled that perhaps their hearts were not
totally committed at that time. As Michael Griffiths describes the
problem:

But becoming a Christian is not simply a matter of
reciting a magic formula at the request of an evangelist, but the answer
of the heart and will in believing response to the invitation of the
Lord Himself.16

While there are frequently emotional factors present, the key issue
here is one of the will: did the individual truly commit himself to
Christ? Thus, whether immaturity was present or not, that is not of chief
importance. The issue is one of the surrender of the will. And when a
person is truly uncertain as to whether he trusted Christ, I usually
encourage him to pray and express his trust in the Lord once again,
telling Him that if he is already a Christian, then this is simply a
prayer of further commitment. Some may disagree with this practice, but I
personally find nothing here that appears to be unbiblical.

c) lack of growth: Some uncertainty can be caused by the believer's
failure to grow in his Christian life. It is as if the person realizes
that further commitment might require getting serious with the Lord. But
for whatever reasons, the decision not to progress in one's walk with the
Lord can lead to uncertainty. One major reason for this dilemma is that
when one does not grow he is not availing himself of much of the means by
which doubt may be avoided. As in a human relationship, a lack of growth
can even signal a drifting apart and can lead to various questions. But
conversely, growing in our commitment is an excellent means of doubt
prevention.

d) self-sufficiency: This kind of uncertainty arises from an attitude
of arrogance towards God. Devoting an entire chapter to the topic,
Guinness identifies this quandary as occurring when a Christian begins to
decide that his will is to be preferred above God's will. This desire for
autonomy manifests itself in various signs that the individual is
attempting to break his allegiance to the Lord. Guinness likens it to a
man whose bickering with his wife and public criticisms of her is
indicative of an internal decision which has been at work.17

e) repentance: Not to be confused with the emotional anxiety which may
come from wondering if one's sins have been forgiven, this category refers
to a lack of repentance from one's sins. When one has unforgiven sin in
his life, this can certainly contribute to a sense of separation from God,
encouraging doubts. And it is the decision (either implicit or explicit)
not to repent of these sins that can keep a person from having peace.

I recall an older man who came to discuss doubts. He was obviously
depressed and did not even want to talk about his problem. After speaking
to him several times and with a counselor who had also dealt with him, it
was discovered that he was apparently involved in an entire lifestyle of
sin at the time of his coming to see me. Later the man admitted that this
was very possibly the reason for his lack of assurance, but he did not
appear to be very concerned about changing. As far as I know, neither did
his uncertainty change.

In another case, a young woman who had an outstanding Christian
testimony began experiencing rather severe doubts after she decided that
her marriage relationship was too binding. And again, as long as she
remained in her rebellious state, the doubts also remained.

f) difficulty of application: One of the most common causes for the
continuance of volitional doubt is, strangely enough, that believers are
reticent to apply the biblical steps for healing, even after they are
known. Since adopting the proper principles when one is hurting (and often
right during the doubt) takes concentration, some conclude that it is
easier to apply the steps only sporadically. Just like it may hurt to pull
weeds, sometimes it is also difficult to deal with these problems in one's
life. But one of the most frequent comments I hear is that, when biblical
steps are applied the doubt is assuaged and, conversely, when they are
not, the uncertainty returns.

I do not conclude that the various treatments will always work on each
type of doubt, largely because the personal factors vary so much. But I
cannot remember ever having anyone tell me, after applying them, that they
do not either ease or heal the problem. And it should be mentioned again
that we make no claims that these methods are the only correct remedies.
In fact such a claim would be far from the truth. Other researchers have
presented additional biblical remedies which can also lead to healing.

C. Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was twofold. Initially, the overall cause
for doubt was discussed: sin. Mankind's sin and the continuing openness to
Satan's temptations are the chief background from which doubts (as well as
many other problems) emerge. Dealing with this temptation is a major way
to combat doubt. While some initial suggestions have been given here, the
subject will again be approached in subsequent chapters.

The main portion of this chapter was devoted to the subject of
identifying various types of doubts. Over twenty different examples were
placed in the three general categories with which we are functioning
(factual, emotional and volitional doubt to). The intention here was not
so much to provide either absolute categories or an exhaustive list of
examples. Rather, the purpose was to produce a variety of samples so that
individuals can perceive both how widespread doubt is and get some idea
about how to identify their type(s) of uncertainty.

We ended this chapter on the note that some persons continue to
experience doubt because they decide, for whatever reasons, not to apply
the biblical remedies. At the same time, many who have applied biblical
maxims to doubt have often found healing. Now this is definitely not to
assert or imply that every case will be solved. It must be said bluntly
that some people are not healed. But when it is remembered that there are
many individual factors, such as (but not limited to) the proper
identification of doubt and the need for faithful (and correct) practice
of biblical principles, such is not surprising. But I would not be fair if
I did not also say that I have witnessed a high percentage of persons who
have at least been helped, if not healed, by God's grace and power.18

It is by no means being pretended that the methods utilized here are
unique. Other researchers in a variety of fields have come to quite
similar conclusions and likewise report that positive results are
attained.19 Additionally, other scholars have utilized different methods
with success, thereby indicating that no one approach necessarily has a
"corner on the market." Certainly such exclusivity is not being claimed
for the methods suggested in this book.

Endnotes--Chapter II

1Other authors have also analyzed doubt into specific categories. Board
identifies four groupings (pp. 4-16), which basically include the three I
just listed plus another which I think is a sub-category of one of them.
Guinness prefers seven divisions (Chapters 5-11) which I, again, think can
be included under three headings. (Compare Bright's three categories of
commitment, pp. 12-45.) But it is very important to note that the point
here is not to arrive at an objective number of families of doubt or to
attempt to prove that a certain figure is correct.

2See Barth, pp. 125-128; Guinness, pp. 67-184; Littleton, pp. 9- 10;
Pinnock, pp. 109-111; Board, pp. 4-16; Wolfe, p.75.

3Guinness, pp. 44-45; cf. Barth, p. 125.

4C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: The Macmillan Company,
1961), pp. 126-127.

5Ibid, Preface, p.3.

6Irwin Lutzer, You're Richer Than You Think (Wheaton: Victor Books,
1978), Chapter 9.

7Incidently, the biblical responses to doubt in subsequent chapters
will include suggestions which can be used with Satanic temptations, as
well.

8Paul is particularly adamant about the inability of man to solve his
own problems. See II Cor. 4:7; 10:3-6; 12:9-10; Eph. 6:10; Phil. 2:12-13;
4:13.

9Pinnock, p. 109.

10Of course, this does not mean that Christians could very well have
strong convictions (and strong emotions!) on these (or other similar)
subjects. Neither does it mean that a person is not justified in defending
his own view, but, due to the very nature of the issues, somewhat less
dogmatism might be warranted.

11Board, pp. 9-14.

12Guinness, p. 33.

13Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, p. 142.

14It is precisely for this reason (and others) that counselors must
take proper precautions while counseling members of the opposite sex. It
is crucial that problems of this nature be handled before they even start
to develop.

15Barth, pp. 70-72.

16Michael C. Griffiths, Christian Assurance (London: Inter- Varsity
Fellowship, 1962), p. 18.

17Guinness, pp. 70-72.

18Perhaps a note is needed concerning the use of the word "healed"
since it has already been indicated that it is "human" to doubt. Thus, it
is not being claimed that these persons never doubt again, but that the
specific form which plagued them before had been resolved. In other words,
their "problem" had been solved (even over long periods of time), although
issues may still arise periodically. Follow-up shows this to be the case.

19Several of these sources will be documented in the endnotes of the
following chapters.

Chapter
III
Factual Doubt

Earlier, factual doubt was referred to as the species of uncertainty
which is frequently concerned with the evidence for Christianity. It is
chiefly interested in issues which are related to the truthfulness of the
faith and regularly expresses questions pertaining to either philosophical
points of interest (such as the existence of God and the problem of pain)
or historical acts (like miracles and Scripture). A major characteristic
of doubt which is primarily factual is that it is generally satisfied if
sufficient data is given in answer to its queries.

In this chapter it will obviously be impossible to argue for the
truthfulness of Christian Theism as a whole when a complete volume would
be unable to perform the entire task. However, using the facts of the
gospel as the indispensable center of the Christian faith, we will begin
by simply listing some of the best evidences for these individual beliefs.
Informational endnotes will direct the interested reader to more detailed
presentations of the basis for each point.

A. A Factual Basis for the Gospel

In I Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul provides one of the most widely cited
lists of the content of the gospel. After relating to his readers that
belief in this gospel is sufficient to save a person (verses 1-2), Paul
states that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the
third day, in agreement with the teaching of the Scriptures (verses 3-4).

From this passage, I think that we can denote at least four facts which
compose the gospel.1 At a minimum, the gospel includes Christ's atoning
death, His burial and His resurrection from the dead (as signified by His
appearances).2 In addition to these three, I believe that the fourth fact
is derived from Paul's use of the title "Christ" here instead of the
proper name "Jesus." Without arguing a complicated topic at this point, I
will simply say that Paul's use of this title has some special
significance, as it does other places in his writings.3 In fact, it would
appear from his other workp as well that Paul would not affirm that one
who accepts the first three facts but who rejects what this title stands
for concerning the person of Christ could be said to be a Christian in any
orthodox sense.

At any rate, I will now turn to a listing of some of the data in favor
of each of these four facts: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus,
as well as His deity. For it would appear that, whether my last conclusion
on the deity of Christ is accepted or not, it would be difficult to argue
that these four facts are not crucial to any orthodox understanding of the
Christian faith.

1. The Death of Jesus

a) The gospels accurately portray numerous details concerning Jesus and
are trustworthy sources for a study of His life. As such, the major texts
on Jesus' death provide noteworthy material for this fact,4 especially in
that there is such widespread agreement in these documents concerning the
general outline of these events.5

b) The New Testament contains numerous creedal statements, which are
oral testimonies (some apparently apostolic in nature) which circulated in
the earliest church. Although they appear in written form in the New
Testament, they actually predate the books in which they are contained.
Some of these creeds are dated from 35-50 A.D. and they frequently report
the death of Jesus.6 This testimony provides early witnesses to these
facts.7

c) A large number of non-Christian sources also report various aspects
of the life of Jesus. Of the more than twenty such witnesses, dating
largely from about 30-130 AD, twelve mention Jesus' death with some
providing several details. Together quite an amount of data is given.8 It
is the most widely-reported fact about Jesus in this non-Christian
literature.

d) Medical science supplies strong evidence concerning the nature of
death by crucifixion, which is essentially death by asphyxiation. Contrary
to some popular thinking, a person does not just hang on the cross until
he bleeds or dehydrates to death. To hang in the low position on the cross
(without pushing upwards) for more than a minimal amount of time is to
suffer asphyxiation according to virtually all medical researchers. So the
authorities could tell when an individual had expired since one could not
"play dead" by hanging low on the cross, while changing positions in order
to breathe would obviously reveal that death had not yet occurred.9
Incidentally, the discovery of the skeleton of a first century Jewish
victim of crucifixion named Yohanan confirms many of these details.10

e) The spear wound in Jesus' side is not only a confirmed Roman
practice,11 but is a very strong medical argument for death, since the
weapon most likely pierced Jesus' heart, as indicated by the flow of
water. Most physicians who have studied this issue agree that the water
most likely proceeded (at least partially) from the pericardium, a sac
which surrounds the heart and holds watery fluid. In other words, the
spear wound would have killed Jesus if He had not already expired.12

f) Somewhat related to the last point is another gory detail of
crucifixion. If the spear had entered Jesus' lung and if He was still
alive, the persons standing around the cross could have distinctly heard a
sucking sound caused by the air being inhaled through the blood and other
bodily fluids. Again, it would have been obvious to the authorities that
Jesus was not dead.13

g) If the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial garment of Jesus, it
would prove Jesus' death on at least two additional counts. The body of
the man buried in the shroud is in a state of rigor mortis and at least
the chest wound exhibits a post-mortem blood flow.14 But it should be
carefully noted here that even if the Shroud of Turin would ever be proven
not to be Jesus' cloth, nothing in Christianity would change; only the
cloth itself would be disproved. And even so, unless it is simply a fake
(which it does not appear to be), it would still provide many
corroborating details for the nature of crucifixion in general.

h) After all these evidences for Jesus' literal death by crucifixion,
this writer believes that the strongest refutation of the so-called swoon
theory was given over 150 years ago by a radical German critic, David
Strauss. He pointed out that the greatest problem with any hypothesis
which denied Jesus' death on the cross is that Jesus' appearances to the
disciples would then obviously show that he was weak and sickly, in need
of much medical care, as evidenced by his having escaped crucifixion alive
but with unhealed wounds. So after such extraordinary events as surviving
the cross, not dying in the tomb, moving the stone and walking to where
the disciples were, Jesus would only have caused the disciples to want to
nurse him back to health. They would have gotten a doctor before
proclaiming him risen!15

But even worse, the early, eyewitness testimony proclaimed a glorified
resurrection body, which would most obviously be at great odds with the
bruised, beaten, bloody, pale, limping body of Jesus! And at this point,
contemporary studies even strengthen Strauss' critique, for it is agreed
even by virtually all critical scholars that the facts indicated that the
earliest disciples unquestionably believed that they had seen the
glorified body of the risen Jesus.16 The fact of this belief is
incompatible with seeing the crucified and revived (but seriously ill)
body of Jesus.

Thus we conclude that the manuscript, historical and medical facts
combine to firmly establish the fact of Jesus' death on the cross, due to
the rigors of crucifixion. It is no wonder that this event is admitted by
virtually all scholars, liberal or conservative.

2. The Burial of Jesus

a) All four gospels record Jesus' burial and, again, there is much
agreement on the general details. The trustworthiness of these accounts
provides good source material corroborating this fact.17

b) The creed in I Cor. 15:3-4 records Jesus' burial and, in all
likelihood, dates from the 30s A.D. As such there is very early testimony
which reveals that the burial was not a belief which was added decades
after the occurrence itself, but actually predates the writing of the New
Testament.18

c) There are also some extra-biblical sources which may help confirm
the burial of Jesus.19 Of perhaps the most interest here is an
archaeological discovery known as the Nazareth Decree which, oddly enough,
does not even specifically mention Jesus. Identifying itself as the
"Ordinance of Caesar" and most probably dating from the reign of Emperor
Claudius (41-54 A.D.), this marble slab mentions Jewish burial practices
including the rolling of stones in front of tombs and the sealing of these
sepulchers. The most interesting issue is why a Roman emperor would be
troubled enough by occurrences in Palestine in order for him to decree
that anyone guilty of robbing tombs would be punished by death, especially
when the normal punishment for this crime was a fine. At any rate, whether
this is an actual reference to Jesus' burial or not, useful information is
thereby gained,20 although this is admittedly not a primary evidence for
His interment.

d) If the Shroud of Turin is the actual garment of Jesus, then an
incredible amount of material is thus gleaned, for this cloth would then
be his burial covering. As such, the shroud would be very valuable in
providing information regarding the way the body was wrapped, as well as
details gathered from the body image on the cloth. And, of course, the
obvious fact would be that, if verified, it would provide actual empirical
evidence for Jesus' burial itself.21

e) Paradoxically, one of the strongest evidences in favor of the burial
of Jesus consists of the strong arguments for the empty tomb, for some of
the same facts which indicate that Jesus' body was missing also show that
He had been interred in the tomb beforehand. The evidences for the empty
tomb, strictly speaking, belong in the next category of arguments for
Jesus' resurrection.22 But several of these, such as the pre-gospel
traditions, the proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem, and the
Jewish polemic which actually admitted the empty tomb also require the
historicity of the burial.

It is for reasons such as these that even most critical exegetes accept
the historical nature of the empty tomb,23 thereby including the facticity
of at least some elements of the burial, as well. Dunn notes that while
the reports of the vacated tomb are doubted by some,

scholarship as a whole has done more to substantiate than
to disprove it. Whatever we make of it, here, we may say with
confidence, is a piece of good historical
information.24
Dunn points out further that it is
extremely difficult to deny the historicity of the empty tomb.25 Certain
portions of this data, conversely, also argue strongly for Jesus' burial.

f) Lastly, the burial of Jesus is quite a natural event. Consequently,
of all of the facts included in the gospel, this one (in one sense)
requires the least amount of evidence. Consequently, relatively few
critics dispute the fact. Thus, while the point to be made here is not an
actual evidence for Jesus' burial, it is still a consideration in its
favor. Simply stated, a burial is the normal result of a death. As such,
the facts which confirm Jesus' death would seem to lead naturally to His
burial. Additionally, the evidence which we have strongly favors such an
event.

3. The Resurrection of Jesus

a) The trustworthiness of the New Testament (and of the gospels, in
particular) provides support for the literal and bodily resurrection of
Jesus. Although critics frequently question several portions of the gospel
narratives,26 these passages can be defended successfully. The general
unanimity of the New Testament witness and the reliability of these texts
produce a strong case for Jesus' resurrection.27

b) The pre-New Testament creeds also strongly support the teaching of
Jesus' resurrection. Not only is this event reported in this literature,28
but it is utilized as evidence for other central Christian doctrines.29

One creedal passage in particular, I Cor. 15:3ff., provides a very
powerful argument for Jesus' resurrection. Most critics who have
investigated this subject date this tradition from the 30s A.D. and,
further, think that Paul received it from the apostles themselves,
probably Peter and James.30 As such, this text provides crucially early
and eyewitness testimony for Jesus' resurrection appearances.31

c) Numerous extra-biblical sources from about 30-180 AD either teach or
imply the facticity of Jesus' resurrection. At least ten total sources are
concerned with the topic of what happened to Jesus after His death, with
each of these actually mentioning either the resurrection or Jesus'
exaltation to heaven.32 Yet, to be quite honest, there are questions about
several of these sources which keep this from being a strong evidence for
the resurrection of Jesus. But the data is still useful in a study of this
subject.33

d) A much more important argument in favor of Jesus' resurrection
concerns the failure of the various alternative theories which have
purported to explain this event in completely natural terms. Not only have
each of these theories been refuted by the known data,34 but the critics
themselves have generally rejected each of them. While Nineteenth Century
older German liberals critiqued these theories individually, Twentieth
Century critical scholars have usually repudiated them as a whole.35 While
the absence of alternative theories by itself does not necessarily prove
Jesus' resurrection, that critics have generally even dismissed these
naturalistic attempts because of their inability to account for the known
facts is a strong indication of the problems facing such skeptical
approaches.

e) But not only have critical attempts to explain the resurrection
failed, there are very important evidences in favor of the facticity of
this event. Factors such as the eyewitness testimony which has not been
explained naturally, the changed lives of disciples who were willing to
die specifically for their belief in the resurrection, the early date of
the proclamation, the empty tomb and the testimonies of two former
skeptical unbelievers (Paul and James, the brother of Jesus) are examples
of the powerful arguments for the literal resurrection.36

f) If the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth, there may even be
some evidence present which indicates that He was raised from the dead.
There is no bodily decomposition on the linen, meaning that the body was
not in the cloth for very long. Additionally, the chief pathologist who
investigated the shroud has testified that the condition of the blood
stains indicates that the body was not unwrapped. Lastly, it is our view
that the evidence indicates the cause of the image on the material to be a
scorch from a dead body. So the absence of a body which was possibly not
unwrapped and a scorch from that dead body could provide empirical,
repeatable evidence for Jesus' resurrection.37

g) I think that the strongest argument for the resurrection of Jesus is
a case which can be based on the minimal historical facts alone. In other
words, I think that even if one utilizes only those facts which are known
to be historical and which are recognized as such by skeptical scholars,
there is still enough data to show that Jesus literally rose from the
dead. This reveals that the resurrection can be established by the
information known to be historical by both skeptics and believers alike.38

There is simply an incredible amount of evidence for Jesus' literal
resurrection from the dead. As the major event in the Christian faith
which involves the supernatural working of God, the believer is on solid
factual grounds with this occurrence, the corroboration of which can be
approached and documented from any of several angles. On a practical note,
when so many events are reported in Scripture, it is by the grace of God
that it is this center of faith (I Cor. 15:12-20) which has received this
degree of confirmation. As such, there is much relevance here for the
subject of factual doubt, as we will perceive below.

4. The Deity of Jesus Christ

a) We will not further belabor the subject of the trustworthiness of
the New Testament but will just state here that if the gospel texts are
accurate, Jesus unquestionably claimed to be deity. This is evident from
numerous passages in all four gospels.39

b) Jesus' pronouncements and His actions reveal that He spoke and acted
as God. His claims to deity are perhaps best seen in the self-designations
"Son" in the context of speaking of God the Father, "Son of Man," His
references to God as "Abba," and His answer to the high priest when asked
if He was the Christ, the Son of God.40 Further, His activities such as
His proclamations that persons would be judged specifically by how they
responded to His message of salvation and His claim to have the authority
to forgive sin (which was judged by the Jewish scribes who were present to
be a prerogative of God alone) are also important indicators of His own
convictions in this area.41 Together, His claims and His actions are
strong arguments that Jesus taught that He was, indeed, deity.42

c) In one of the strongest arguments for the deity of Christ, Royce
Gruenler points out that, utilizing only a minimalistic list of Jesus'
evidenced sayings as assembled (and accepted) by radical New Testament
critics themselves (and which contain none of the explicit Christological
utterances which the gospels attribute to Jesus) one can still prove that
Jesus was conscious of His own deity. In other words, even in the
critically ascertainable synoptic gospel passages which "liberal" critics
almost unanimously believe to preserve the authentic words of Jesus, we
still find that He claimed divine authority. Thus, there is no necessary
reason to distinguish the Jesus of the minimal authentic sayings from the
Jesus who makes the lofty claims found in all four gospels. Jesus claimed
divine prerogatives in both cases.43

d) While it is frequently claimed that the earliest church did not
believe that Jesus was deity, a study of some of the early creeds reveal
that this is not the case. They ascribe titles to Jesus such as "Christ"
(or Messiah), "Son" and "Lord." And lest some challenge the meanings of
these titles by claiming that these terms do not infer deity but some
lesser role for Jesus, some of the contexts (such as Phil. 2:6-11) reveal
exactly the opposite.44 The early church proclaimed Jesus as deity even to
the point of being "pre-existent" and "equal with God."45

e) Numerous extra-biblical sources, although certainly later than the
creedal sources just discussed, also plainly refer to Jesus as deity. At
least three non-Christian writings call Jesus divine, while four others
relate that early Christians believed this about Jesus.46 The earliest
non-New Testament Christian writers clearly refer to Jesus as deity,
including specifically calling Him God on numerous occasions.47

f) Since Jesus proclaimed Himself as deity, as revealed by both His
teachings and His actions, and since the earliest church also held that He
was deity, the question of verifying the teachings of Jesus is crucially
important. It may be argued that Jesus' resurrection from the dead was the
chief sign (miracle) which confirmed the truthfulness of His claims.48

After viewing the factual basis for the death,49 burial, resurrection
and deity of Jesus Christ, we have found that the evidence for each
portion of the gospel message is extremely strong. As such, we have a firm
foundation on which to address the issue of how we might make use of these
facts in the treatment of doubt.

B. Applying Facts to Factual Doubt

1. Simple and Compound Doubt

We began this chapter with the assertion that uncertainty which is
factual in nature (or even primarily factual) is generally satisfied by
the relevant evidence or other data. In other words, this sort of state is
treated chiefly by a study of the appropriate grounds for faith.

Guinness expresses the issue this way:

Faith does not feed on thin air but on facts. Its
instinct is to root itself in truth, to earth itself in reality, and it
is this which distinguishes faith from fantasy, the object of faith from
a figment of imagination . . . . This is always the way. This type of
doubt is silenced by facts, answered by truth and reassured by
understanding . . . . Truth is the only sufficient answer faith can give
doubt, for it is the truth of the matter, the facts of the case which
give faith its solid foundation.50

Likewise, Board states the problem similarly:

Deep questions require deep study . . . . Christianity
has something to do with fact and truth . . . . So doubts of error are
met by knowledge and study.51

We have concurred with this prognosis throughout this chapter. It has
been our purpose to present a long list of evidences in favor of the
death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. Although it was not
possible to develop any of these points, informational footnotes have
suggested some additional sources in order to facilitate just the sort of
study which can be the primary correction to this type of uncertainty.

Persons who have come to me with factual doubts are often distinguished
by their questions involving the truthfulness of Christianity (in whole or
in part), the lack of observable emotional patterns and a seeming desire
to accept a good answer. As such, the proper data should at least
theoretically be a sufficient cure.

A simple and somewhat humorous illustration of this occurred in my own
family. My oldest son, Robbie, has always been a very inquisitive child,
frequently refusing to take easy answers at face value. Once, after he
asked me how one can know that Jesus was really raised from the dead, we
got into a simple discussion about history in general and how one can
know, for instance, that George Washington ever existed. Just a short time
later, during Easter season, Robbie's Sunday School teacher asked the
entire class the same question about the resurrection, to which my son
replied, "How do you know that George Washington ever lived?" After a
moment of reflection, the teacher understood the connection and she
responded, "Oh yes, you're Habermas' son, aren't you?" At any rate,
Robbie's factual doubts had been solved by the data and he was convinced
enough to share the answer with others.

At the same time, the counselor or teacher who does an insufficient job
dealing with a question ought not necessarily assume that the person's
doubt is of a different nature. Thus if an individual questions the deity
of Christ, it will probably not help to tell him to "just believe,"
concluding, if he doesn't, that it must be a volitional issue. Guinness
states the problem well:

If someone is doubting the resurrection, it is irrelevant
to assure him of Christ's promise never to leave him -- Christ never was
with him if he has not risen . . . . If there is "no reason why" for
faith, the time may come when there is "no reason why not" for doubt.
And the best remedy for this doubt is to know the sure and sufficient
reasons God has given us, to know why we can know God is there, to know
why we can trust his revelation as true, to know why we can be sure of
his love and his goodness, and to stand firm in our understanding of
these truths.52

On the other hand, uncertainty is frequently not a simple issue but a
compound one. More than factual doubt is quite often present. Perhaps what
was once a more simple factual uncertainty has progressed to emotional
levels due to a person's not being able to deal with it adequately. A more
complicated case would be one in which factual and emotional doubt leads
to a volitional quandary because of the unsettled nature of the other
issues.

In one such case, an outstanding young Christian intellectual was
studying for his doctorate at a major northeastern university. There he
found himself alone and without much fellowship with other believers. And
even though he had studied Christian philosophy and apologetics, what
started as a few intellectual questions smoldered until an emotional flame
followed. This young student interpreted his emotions as a rejection of
Christianity and acted accordingly. Over a period of a few months, he read
several anti-Christian authors, further confirming his change in beliefs.

During this time, when he had the opportunity, he told several of his
Christian friends that he was now an agnostic and that he had, indeed,
repudiated his faith. Later, when this budding skeptic's former pastor had
heard about the problem and then drove over to speak to him, the pastor
discovered that volitional doubt was likewise operational--this graduate
student both acted cold and had no intention (or apparent desire) to
choose to believe otherwise.

This was an example of doubt that had started fairly simply but had
later blossomed into a compound case involving factual, emotional and
volitional factors. But the pastor rightly surmised in this case that,
unless the factual objections were removed first, emotional healing and
the response of the will would probably not occur. So, the pastor took
several trips to see the student and, acting correctly, attempted to chip
away at the intellectual problems. Over a period of a few more months, the
pastor was successful in showing his former member that, on strictly
factual grounds, Christianity was true.

When no further factual objections of any importance remained, the
pastor then concentrated on the rebellious will of the student, suggesting
repentance. While at first the advice was resisted, the student finally
did repent, returning to a prosperous Christian belief and life. Some time
later, things were still getting better with the fruits of true Christian
commitment being evident. Here and in other situations of either salvation
or such repentance, I must conclude that without the work of the Holy
Spirit, the ultimate result would never have occurred.

2. Dealing with Factual Doubt

Our previous discussion points out the importance of identifying what
type of doubt is present in an individual. And while the last illustration
may show that such is sometimes a complicated matter, there are several
indications which reveal that it is not as difficult as one may think. One
need not untangle every last thread; disclosing the chief type and working
with it can usually cause the situation to unravel significantly so that
other aspects can also be treated. Additionally, love and concern can be
shown to the person, which in itself often helps. Lastly, the helper is
not "on his own" and need not feel that the burden is on him. We can each
only do our best; changing lives is the Holy Spirit's domain. Believers
need to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit's working through them. Other
believers can also be very helpful, as can personal study.

Having said all of this, how do we actually deal with factual doubt? I
will suggest three steps, all of which follow from our preceding
discussion.53

First, we need to learn the factual basis for the Christian faith. This
is not to say that all Christians must become sophisticated apologists,
but it does mean that we can at least have a good grasp of the factual
basis for the gospel, as the center of the faith. And this is doubly
crucial for the one who is either suffering factual doubt or who is
helping another through it.

Of course, such a suggestion might take some study. Board states that,
in working on this type of uncertainty, there "is no place for sloth."54
Guinness asserts that "of all the families of doubt this is probably the
one best helped by reading."55 Be this as it may, having a sound factual
basis for faith is the best remedy for factual doubt, as shown earlier in
this section. And while an outlined case for the grounding for the gospel
has already been supplied in this chapter, other relevant material and
topics are also important here. But knowing why we believe the things we
do is an excellent starting point.

Second, we cannot be content merely to know the basis for the Christian
faith, and the gospel in particular, but we must constantly review and
rehearse these facts. Thus, we must remind ourselves of this data.

After speaking of the subject of doubt, C. S. Lewis mentions this last
point in his characteristic way:

. . . make sure that, if you have once accepted
Christianity, then some of its main doctrines shall be deliberately held
before your mind for some time every day. That is why daily prayers and
religious reading and church-going are necessary parts of the Christian
life. We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither
this belief nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind.
It must be fed.56

Lewis makes the worthwhile assertion here that such activity should
occur daily, as well. To wait for the time that we experience doubt in
order to "apply the facts" is not as affective. Besides, daily practice
and review should act as a kind of doubt prevention. It is also
recommended that such rehearsal might occur (in addition to Lewis'
emphasis on prayer, reading and worship) in a daily period of meditation
(see the later treatment of this subject).

Third, the factual basis for Christianity must be firmly held by faith.
For me, this was always the toughest step, for I didn't think that faith
was even relevant in this context, let alone knowing how to do it.

This point requires more attention than we can give it here. And since
it is a matter of volition, as well, it is treated in more depth in that
chapter. Suffice it to say at this juncture that faith is not a "weak
sister." To quote Lewis, "Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using
the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once
accepted, in spite of your changing moods."57

One additional (and perhaps intriguing) assertion needs to be made on
this subject and that is that faith needs to shift from factual
propositions of the gospel to the Christ of the gospel. This needs to be
treated later, as well, but the point is that it is not the impersonal
relationship of a believer with the historical facts that is needed, but a
personal, living relationship with the Jesus of the facts.

Perhaps two final notes of application are needed here. First, with
factual doubts, the chief issue is the truth of the factual basis for
Christianity. And since the gospel is true, we should stress that this is
the case whether one chooses to believe it or not. And there is a certain
sense in which it must be said to the one doubting that other concerns are
less relevant at this point. Did Jesus Christ die for our sins? Was Jesus
Christ buried afterwards? Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? Is Jesus
Christ deity? We must stay on track here; to be sidetracked by pseudo
problems is perhaps to lose the battle. How we feel about the data or if
there is the "slightest chance" that it is false58 are red herrings.

With regard to serious factual objections, each must be faced on its
own grounds. The endnotes in this chapter should provide some useful
sources. But briefly, the viewpoint from which the challenge comes may
need to be identified, since it very possibly has a bearing on the answer.
Then the explicit issue needs to be addressed. But once again, the major
subject in both factual uncertainty and with factual objections is still
the facts: what are they? The evidence proves each of the facts in the
gospel, so this sort of uncertainty ought to subside as we continually
apply this knowledge.

Second, if a person continues to balk and defend his doubt, then other
types of uncertainty may be the issue. Initially we should be willing to
check if we have done the best we can in presenting the factual basis for
Christianity. But beyond that, we should be alert for other signs.
Questions about the very possibility of being mistaken, especially in the
absence of any new facts, probably identifies emotional doubt. On the
other hand, the unwillingness to exercise further faith may indicate
volitional concerns. And we turn to these other species of uncertainty in
subsequent chapters.

C. Conclusion

The gospel is the absolute center of the Christian faith. It is also
the portion of Christianity which is most readily verified by the
evidence. The atoning death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus
Christ are established on extremely strong grounds. I think that it is
even a further indication of God's grace that the evidence is so abundant
at this crucial juncture rather than at less important points.

Applying such facts to factual uncertainty can be tricky especially
because of the compound doubts which are frequently present. But learning
the factual basis, continually reviewing it and holding on to it by faith
should cure factual doubt. Practice is imperative.

Christians must regularly remind themselves that the chief concern here
is the truthfulness of the faith. Factual doubts and objections should be
handled in much the same way: what does the evidence indicate? If the
factual uncertainty is not solved at this point, we should examine both
the job we did in studying and communicating that basis and the likelihood
that there is more to the doubt than just that factual element itself.

Endnotes--Chapter III

1It should be noted that the word "gospel" in this discussion is used
more narrowly of those facts which, in an orthodox sense, it is necessary
for one to believe in order to be a Christian. To be more proper, the
"gospel" is being used here of the facts which one must believe concerning
Christ, for faith is placed in Him, not in the facts themselves. And I
realize that any listing of the facts in the gospel will be open to some
question and dialogue. So I will claim at this point simply that I think
those listed here are the minimum number of beliefs which comprise the
gospel as enunciated by many orthodox scholars.

2A very interesting point is made by those who think that the
resurrection appearances should also be included as a distinct element in
the gospel specifically as listed by Paul in I Cor. 15:3-5. The argument
here is largely based on the "kai . . . kai . . . kai" sequence of verses
4-5 and asserts that, just as the burial and the resurrection of Christ
are listed, the third kai also includes the appearances. A possible
response is that, since no human being witnessed the actual resurrection
itself (as far as is known), the fact that Jesus was indeed raised (v.4)
is the conclusion drawn from the facts that He had actually died (v.3) and
then later appeared (v.5), thereby meaning that the resurrection and
appearances are construed as a whole. But the practical point to be made
here is that, either way this question is solved, a defense of the
resurrection is virtually always done in terms of the appearances anyway
and the endnotes here will attest the same.

3See the sources in endnote 41 below for the relevance of the title
"Christ" and other related issues.

4For a defense of various aspects of the trustworthiness of the
gospels, including questions of authorship and eyewitness testimony (from
both several viewpoints and on different difficulty levels), see: William
F. Albright, Archeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press, 1942); Paul Althaus, "Fact and Faith in the Kerygma," in
Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966); Craig Blomberg, The
Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1987); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960); John Drane,
Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers,
1986); Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1976), Chapter 16; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1971); Archibald M. Hunter, Bible and
Gospel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), Chapter 3; Josh
McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino: Here's Life
Publishers, Chapter 4; John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1964, 1965), Chapters 1-2; John A. T.
Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1977); A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society
and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963;
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978); Bastiaan Van Elderen, "The Teaching
of Jesus and the Gospel Records," in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord,
edited by Carl F. H. Henry, op.cit.

5For defenses of the further point of the inspiration of the New
Testament as well, see: Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982); W. Arndt,
Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1955); Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the
Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968); R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and
Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957);
Robert P. Lightner, The Saviour and the Scriptures (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1966); Clark H. Pinnock,
Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1971); Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982); B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration
and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1948); John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984).

6See Phil. 2:8; I Pet. 3:18; cf. Rom. 4:25 for examples of early creeds
which report the death of Jesus. Additionally, I Cor. 15:3 and 11:26 are
especially central in such a discussion.

7See Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus:
Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1984), especially Chapter V.

8For these twelve sources and a discussion of their value, see
Habermas, Ibid., Chapters IV, VII.

9For some of the many medical doctors who have studied death by
crucifixion, see, for example, Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary (New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1953); Robert Bucklin, "The Legal and
Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and
the Law, January, 1970; William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel and Floyd E.
Hosmer, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" in Journal of the American
Medical Association, volume 255, number 11, March 21, 1986; C. Truman
Davis, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Passion of Christ from a Medical
Point of View" Arizona Medicine, March, 1965.

10See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 153-155. For a technical
treatment of this archaeological find, see Nicu Haas, "Anthropological
Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar," Israel
Exploration Journal, volume 20, numbers 1-2.

11For a Roman statement, see Quintillian, Declamationes maiores 6,9.
For another example, compare John Foxe, Foxe's Christian Martyrs of the
World (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), p. 96. The regularity of this practice
is difficult to determine.

12Each of the medical doctors in endnote number 9 agrees with this
general description, as examples of those who hold this position.

13Frederick T. Zugibe, The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Examiner
Investigates the Crucifixion (Cresskill: McDonagh and Company, 1981), p.
165.

14Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud:
Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ann Arbor:
Servant Books, 1981; Wayne: Dell Publishing Company, 1982), see especially
Chapter Ten.

15Strauss' famous critique appears in his work A New Life of Jesus, two
volumes (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1879), volume I, pp. 408-412.
Another critic, Albert Schweitzer, found Strauss' criticisms to be the
"death-blow" to such rationalistic hypotheses like the old view that Jesus
did not die. See Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus,
translated by W. Montgomery (New York: MacMillian Publishing Company,
1968), pp. 56-57.

16For two examples, Reginald Fuller calls this early belief by Jesus'
disciples "one of the indisputable facts of history." James D. G. Dunn
states that it "is almost impossible to dispute" the historical fact of
this conviction by the earliest Christians. See Reginald H. Fuller, The
Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1965), p. 142; James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), p. 75.

17See endnote number 4 above.

18See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 124-127

19For a discussion of these, see Ibid., pp. 99-100, 110, 147.

20For further information, see Ibid., pp. 155-156; cf. Paul L. Meier,
First Easter (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), pp. 119-120.

21For an example of such information, see Bonnie LaVoie, Gilbert
LaVoie, Daniel Klutstein and John Regan, "In Accordance with Jewish Burial
Custom, The Body of Jesus was not Washed," Shroud Spectrum International,
volume I, number 3 (June, 1982), pp. 8-17.

22For good arguments for the empty tomb, see William Lane Craig, "The
Empty Tomb of Jesus" in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and
Tradition in the Four Gospels, edited by R. T. France and David Wenham,
volume II (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); Edward Lynn Bode, The First
Easter Morning, Analecta Biblica 45 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1970); Robert H. Stein, "Was the Tomb Really Empty?" Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, volume 20, number 1 (March, 1977).

23Craig, Ibid., p. 194.

24Dunn, p. 69.

25Ibid., p.75.

26In addition, it will be said below that the elements which are most
crucial for a resurrection apologetic can be established on historical
grounds apart from any belief in the inspiration or even the general
trustworthiness of the New Testament.

27On the issue of the trustworthiness of the resurrection passages in
particular (in addition to endnote number 4) several specialized works
deal with both the more basic and the more advanced concerns. In the
former category, see John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection
Accounts in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984) and
Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino: Here's Life
Publishers, Inc., 1981). Of a more advanced and technical nature, see
Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984) and Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal:
Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983).

28Lk. 24:34; II Tim. 2:8; cf. I Tim 3:15-16; Phil. 2:8-11.

29Rom. 1:3,4; 10:9-10.

30Dunn dates it as early as 32 or 33 A.D. (see pp. 69-70). Cf. Harris,
pp. 9-14 and Osborne, pp. 221-233.

31For a survey of the reasoning behind these conclusions and the
positions of various scholars, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp.
124-127.

32These include six non-Christian and four Christian sources.

33For a listing of these ten sources, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence,
Chapters IV, VI, VII. For a critical evaluation of them, see especially
pages 112-115, 149-150, 161.

34While such a feat could take a book-length manuscript itself, the
interested reader might consult what is still a classic treatment of the
subject, James Orr's The Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1965, from the 1908 edition). Cf. Gary R. Habermas, The
Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms International, 1976), pp. 114-171.

35For a brief summary of some of the critical attacks on these
alternative theories themselves, see Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did
Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, edited by Terry L.
Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1987), pp. 20-21,
including endnotes.

36For a brief listing of these and other evidences for the
resurrection, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 127-129.

37For our conclusion on this issue, see Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict
on the Shroud, Chapter Eleven.

8For this argument in more detailed form, see Habermas, Ancient
Evidence, pp. 124-132.

39Besides the synoptic references in the next two endnotes (40 and 41)
see John 4:25-26; 5:17-18; 10:27-33; 14:6. In addition to the sources in
endnote number 4 above, see those in number 42, as well.

40For examples, see Matt. 11:27; Mk. 2:10-11; 10:45; 13:32; 14:36;
14:61-63.

41For examples, see Matt. 19:28-29; Mk. 2:1-12; 8:34-38; Lk. 12:8-9.

42There is much discussion on these issues in contemporary theology
and, sadly, evangelicals have frequently failed to address many of the
chief queries posed by critics. But this does not mean that the issues
have not been answered. For an excellent treatment of the subject which
not only answers many of the key questions but challenges the typical
critical assessments, see Royce Gordon Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus
and the Gospels: A Phenomenological and Exegetical Study of Synoptic
Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982). For other important
and noteworthy studies on these topics, see I. Howard Marshall, The
Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1976); Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Intervarsity
Press, 1976); George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974). Compare also Martin
Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of
Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, translated by John Bowden (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976) and C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

43See Gruenler, Ibid., pp. 15, 29, 31 and, especially, Chapters 2-3.
Gruenler adds that even in the Gospel of John, Jesus makes no explicit
claims which are not appropriate based on what is known about His implicit
claims derived from the minimalistic data discussed above.

44See especially I Cor. 11:23; 15:3; Rom. 1:3,4 and Phil. 2:6-11. Cf.
Acts 8:37; I Cor. 12:3; Heb. 4:14; I Jn. 4:15.

45Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, translated by
Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles M. Hall, revised edition (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1963), p. 235; cf. pp. 55, 57, 321. Cf. Hengel, pp.
57-83; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, translated by
Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, LTD., 1966), p. 101 for instance.

46See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, p. 109 for a listing of these
sources.

47See the clear testimonies of Clement of Rome, Corinthians, 36, 59;
Ignatius, Ephesians 5, 7, 15, 18, 19, 20; Magnesians 6, 7, 8; Romans,
Introduction, 3, 8; Philadelphians 7; Smyrneans 1, 4; To Polycarp 8;
Polycarp, Philippians 12. Of the three authors here, only Clement of Rome
does not specifically call Jesus God. It is noteworthy that several New
Testament texts also refer to Jesus as God (see Jn. 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Rom.
9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; II Pet. 1:1; cf. Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3)
although there is some question concerning the grammar, syntax or text in
a few of these instances.

48See Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980; Lanham: University Press of America,
1984), especially Chapters 1-3.

49In I Cor. 15:3 Paul states that it is not just the death of Jesus
which plays such an important part in the gospel, but His atoning death
(i.e. that Jesus died for our sins). For a defense of the atonement, see
Habermas, Ibid., pp. 108-112.

50Guinness, pp. 115-116.

51Board, pp. 7,9.

52Guinness, p. 117.

53Here and elsewhere in this book, the steps which are given should not
be viewed as some "magic number" or as the healing process itself. In
fact, the one suffering the doubt should ideally modify and expand these
prescriptions in a biblical manner to fit his or her own needs. As
Guinness aptly points out, assurance depends on our "grasp of God," not
our mastery of identifying doubt or memorizing certain steps (Guinness, p.
33).

54Board, p.7.

55Guinness, p. 118.

56Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 124.

57Ibid., p. 123. I think that faith is much more than this (as Lewis
also says), but this does not render this usage illegitimate.

58It is true that history can only provide facts according to high
probability. But this ought to be no cause for doubt. We act every day
based on probability and it never seems to bother us ("Will I arrive home
from work safely?"). Additionally, such is all the factual certainty that
any human enterprise (including science) can give us, so we are on strong
grounds. And in well evidenced cases, such us the resurrection of Jesus,
the term "proof" is warranted. Lastly, in pointing out the factual basis
for Christianity we are deciding in favor of these facts, not against
them. Thus, to continue to be bothered by the small chance to the contrary
is a witness to one's emotional (not factual) doubt. (See Habermas,
Ancient Evidence, pp. 19-20 for some additional thoughts on the nature of
historical research.)

Chapter
IV
Emotional Doubt

We have already referred to this species of uncertainty as emanating
chiefly from one's passions or moods, usually involving a subjective
response(s) by the individual. It perhaps most frequently masquerades as
intellectual doubt and hence does not immediately reveal its disguised
emotional basis. Such may often be discovered by careful questioning about
the individual's beliefs on subjects such as the facts of the gospel. In
my experience, it may soon be established by this means that the person
who manifests this type of doubt will show that these factual issues are
not primary. Rather, in this kind of uncertainty, it is the underlying
feelings behind the individual's queries that are of prime interest.
Additionally, such feelings are sometimes also accompanied by varying
types of distraught psychological states, at least privately. The
counselor or teacher will often observe such as a result of probing to the
center of the issue.

How, then, can the helper assist in identifying this type of
uncertainty? Several earmarks of emotional doubt serve to distinguish it
from other species of uncertainty, especially the volitional variety. Very
regularly, the factual data is judged by how one feels about it, rather
than on its own merits. Thus, instead of coming to grips with the strength
of the evidence, the one experiencing the quandary often responds by
emoting about it. Another common sign concerns the periodic emotional
"highs" which doubting individuals sometimes experience when they think
that their doubts may have subsided. When such elation is followed later
by a return to the previous state, all in the absence of any change in the
actual state of the evidence, this may well be an indication that the
person's passions are likely divorced from the facts on this subject of
doubt.

Still another means of identifying uncertainty as emotional in nature
occurs in the fair number of cases where its origin becomes known, such as
with childhood problems or in the case of old wounds. One more indication,
and in my experience usually the major signal which most quickly reveals a
doubt as emotional, is sent when the suffering person responds to an
admittedly strong presentation of the reasons why he should not doubt with
a query which might be phrased in terms of, "Okay, but what if . . . ?"1
While such questioning can (and does) have meanings other than this one,
the "what if" perspective, more than perhaps any other, often precedes
some inquiry as to why some extremely unlikely scenario (which is usually
even admitted to be improbable) might not be true or might not occur after
all. The questioner thereby exposes his position as one which is more
concerned about (barely) possible options than about what the facts
actually relate. This reveals, once again, that it is not the data which
the individual considers determinative, as strong as that may be, but
rather identifies the real issue as one involving strong feelings.2

There are still at least two other characteristics which commonly
identify a doubt as emotional, but both of these are shared with
volitional uncertainty and thus need to be distinguished. When no amount
of evidence (which the doubter admits to be strong) ever brings a person
at least some peace, even when these facts are properly applied, and
especially when small, "picky" problems are continually raised, such most
likely reveals either an emotional basis or the will not to believe
(volitional).3 Additionally, if peace is beginning to shed its light on
the unsettled quandary but the doubter paradoxically finds himself
fighting that peace, believing that he should not allow himself to
experience it until the issue is completely settled, this likewise points
to either emotional or volitional uncertainty.

The key to identifying which of the two types of doubt is primarily
present in these last two illustrations is found in both the origin of the
uncertainty in each particular case and how it manifests itself. For one
example, emotional doubt is frequently revealed by distraught emotional
states while volitional matters are generally communicated in a much more
settled manner. Both our list of common doubts in Chapter II and our
discussion of each overall species (in the appropriate chapters) should be
helpful in such cases. But it also needs to be remembered that more than
one kind of uncertainty is commonly present. And here, once again, the
predominant type needs to identified and worked on at the start of the
healing process.

At this point a major misunderstanding of Christian doubt as a whole
ought to be mentioned again. It would seem that many persons believe that
most doubt is factual in nature. And while this assumption appears to be
quite prevalent, I think that careful research will reveal that it is
probably false.4 In my own case studies involving Christians who
experience uncertainty, if I have properly identified at least the primary
individual doubts, 69% experience chiefly emotional doubt.

This is an interesting conclusion for me personally for at least a
couple of reasons. Initially, I had to change my own views on this
subject. Years ago I would have had to say that I also believed that
factual doubts were predominant. So my study has forced a personal
reappraisal of my position. Next, even emotional doubt (as we shall see)
ought to be affected by a proper application of the facts, although with a
different perspective, method and purpose. So my interest in apologetics
was also relevant here as well.

But here a very important point needs to be heavily emphasized. Even if
emotional doubts are the most prevalent variety among Christians, this
does not require that emotions be viewed as bad. It is still true that
they are God-given and, like many things in life, can either be properly
or improperly utilized. In fact, we should even thank God regularly for
our emotions. Even if they appear to make us uncomfortable on occasion, we
should still be thankful for them. We should confirm the fact of our
emotions and continue to pursue the proper use of them. After all, as we
will see, emotional doubts usually come from the things which we tell
ourselves. And they are part of us, not some outside force fighting
against us.

It is an earlier point which we need to stress in this immediate
context. Not to understand the nature of doubt or to misidentify it could
affect a person's healing. And judging from some current approaches, there
also appears to be some confusion as to what to actually do about
emotional doubt. This is evident when some authors describe the phenomenon
but have very little to say by way of suggested healing.5 With this
introductory understanding we will now proceed to a more in-depth
description of emotional uncertainty.

A. Doubt, Imagination and Emotions

Several authors have written about the actual characteristics of
emotional doubt, but, in my estimation, none better than C. S. Lewis. In
several brief discussions of the subject, he sets forth a description of
the plight that besets all human beings when one's feelings wage war on
one's reason. Such assaults are described in the kind of minute detail
which could only come from one who has intimately experienced such
uncertainty (and Lewis fully acknowledges his personal acquaintance with
such, as well).

As for the nature of such attacks, Lewis describes them as emotions
which "rise up and carry out a sort of blitz" on one's belief.6 And they
plague all persons; in Lewis' words, "These irrational fluctuations in
belief are not peculiar to religious belief. They are happening about all
our beliefs all day long."7 But our concern is with religious doubt, and
pertaining to this, Lewis elaborates:

And let us note that whichever view we embrace, mere
feeling will continue to assault our conviction. Just as the Christian
has his moments when the clamor of this visible and audible world is so
persistent and the whisper of the spiritual world so faint that faith
and reason can hardly stick to their guns, so, as I well remember, the
atheist too has his moments of shuddering misgiving, of an all but
irresistible suspicion that old tales may after all be true, that
something or someone from outside may at any moment break into his neat,
explicable, mechanical universe. Believe in God and you will have to
face hours when it seems obvious that this material world is the only
reality: disbelieve in Him and you must face hours when this material
world seems to shout at you that it is not all.8

Thus emotional doubt affects persons across a wide spectrum, casting
both believers and unbelievers alike into the same dilemma. And unless one
can control such uncertainty, one "can never be either a sound Christian
or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with
its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its
digestion."9

To illustrate the affect of one's feelings on one's reason, Lewis
likens his own response to the medical usage of anesthetics. Though
completely convinced on good grounds that the anesthesia will do no harm,
he witnessed that when it was time for it to be administered, "a mere
childish panic begins inside me . . . . I lose my faith in anesthetics."
It is not reason warring against faith here because for Lewis, faith is
based on reason. Rather, "The battle is between faith and reason on one
side and emotion and imagination on the other."10

This analogy is reminiscent of another which is employed by Blaise
Pascal, a Seventeenth Century French philosopher and mathematician who
quipped:

If the greatest philosopher in the world find himself
upon a plank wider than actually necessary, but hanging over a
precipice, his imagination will prevail, though his reason convince him
of his safety. Many cannot bear the thought without a cold sweat. I will
not state all its effects.11

I think that the affect of Pascal's illustration is even more gripping,
for many of us can indeed understand his point only too well. The
reasonable conviction that we can walk across a board that is sufficiently
wide (especially if we have done it many times before) does little to
assist us if that object is placed across a chasm. In such a circumstance,
reason is at the mercy of one's imagination. For those of us who value our
reasoning faculties, this is a sobering (and even a humbling) thought, but
it is so frequently true. It aptly describes the plight in which humans
find themselves when imagination conquers reason.

If I may indulge myself for the sake of one last illustration, the
popular (but somewhat cruel!) childhood game where one utilizes one's
fists to alternately represent a rock, scissors or paper is also
instructional. The rock would perhaps appear to be the "strongest" object
here and, as one might expect, it crushes the scissors. And while the
scissors naturally cut the paper, a completely unexpected result also
occurs: the paper covers (and thereby "defeats") the rock! I think that
such is also a poignant picture of the relationship between one's reason
and one's emotions (or "imagination" as Lewis or Pascal might prefer).
While our reason appears to be ever so logical, requiring evidence, a
little dose of feelings effectively topples the castle.

And what about the cause of this sort of doubt? By describing a common
scenario, Lewis is perhaps at his best:

Our faith in Christ wavers not so much when real
arguments come against it as when it looks improbable--when the whole
world takes on that desolate look which really tells us much more about
the state of our passions and even our digestion than about reality.12

But perhaps surprisingly, we frequently disguise the emotion as a
rational exercise:

But everyone must have experienced days in which we are
caught up in a great wave of confidence or down into a trough of anxiety
though there are no new grounds either for the one or the other. Of
course, once the mood is on us, we find reasons soon enough. We say that
we've been `thinking it over': but it is pretty plain that the mood has
created the reasons and not vice versa.13

And lastly, how does such imagination affect our conception of
Christianity? Again Lewis points out:

When once passion takes part in the game, the human
reason, unassisted by Grace, has about as much chance of retaining its
hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its
consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace. The sort of arguments
against Christianity which our reason can be persuaded to accept at the
moment of yielding to temptation are often preposterous. Reason may win
truths; without Faith she will retain them just so long as Satan
pleases.14

From these insightful comments, we may glean several worthwhile
pointers concerning the nature of emotional uncertainty. One's personal
Christianity is more frequently threatened by one's view of his faith than
by any actual problem. Thus, such questioning explains more about
ourselves and other subjective factors than it does about Christianity.

Then, speaking as a "seasoned veteran," Lewis describes how emotional
doubts usually thrive without input from any new objections to
Christianity. Rather, the mood causes the believer to "invent" problems.
Let me add here that the sort of concerns which affect believers during
such moods are quite often the same "old" issues which the person has
contemplated on several other occasions and which would not bother him if
it were not for his current frame of mind. But Lewis notes how we quickly
conclude that the factual problem is the reason for the anxiety, when such
is usually not the case. Further, it is often the "preposterous"
objections which are treated as respectable during these emotional periods
of time.

B. Models for Healing

There are numerous methods for treating patients with psychiatric or
psychological problems of a religious nature, perhaps in part because of
the different backgrounds and professional convictions of the counselors
themselves. Some operate primarily from a medical perspective, others with
a psychological or counseling model. A growing group of pastors who have
gotten increasingly involved in the healing process broaden this field of
study. And this is not to infer that those within these separate groupings
necessarily agree with each other, either!

On several occasions, I have observed the friendly rivalry between
professionals who hold to these differing perspectives. The give-and-take
is often fascinating as with an ongoing but amiable interchange which
occurred between two friends of mine, a psychiatrist and a psychologist,
who regularly discussed theoretical aspects concerning the subject of
which proposed remedies really obtained the best results. On another
occasion, I chaired a dialogue between two other scholars with different
perspectives on whether the medical or psychological models were more
conducive to theological endeavors. Another type of interaction which has
really helped me has been derived from my referrals of certain persons to
our campus counseling center and my continuing interaction in each of
these cases.

But in spite of these differing approaches, the Christian who is
suffering from doubt can take heart on at least three counts. Christian
counselors such as those listed below agree that Scripture is central to
the healing process and its truths are to be applied. Therefore,
counseling goals and desired results are based on an objective Source.15

Additionally, there is widespread agreement among these professionals
that more than one kind of treatment can work. After surveying a number of
models, both psychological and medical, Gary Collins concludes that:

A careful look at the Bible reveals, however, that a
variety of techniques were used when counseling took place . . . .
counseling must utilize a variety of techniques.16

Lastly, there is an amazing amount of agreement among Christian
researchers that a major (if not the chief) element in treating emotional
doubt is cognitive in nature. That is, increasing numbers of professionals
think that the primary approach to this type of uncertainty is to devise a
strategy which applies rational truth to one's thoughts and actions. Thus,
such a method requires both a cognitive response and a behavioral
change.17

As an example, it would be amiss to describe C. S. Lewis' account of
emotional uncertainty in such detail in the previous section of this
chapter without also providing his answer to it. For Lewis, the answer is
twofold, involving a cognitive change followed by a behavioral one. First,
one needs to recognize that moods are going to change no matter who one is
or what one believes. So individuals must be resolved, in Lewis' words, to
teach these moods "where they get off." By this it is meant that one
should actually expect changing emotions and be ready to dictate the truth
whenever needed.18 Second, Christians must "train the habit of Faith" by
daily reviewing Christian doctrine in prayer, edificational reading and
church attendance.19 In fact, it is asserted that only such "practice of
Faith resulting in the habit of Faith will gradually" solve these
dilemmas.20

Os Guinness also has a twofold remedy for emotional questioning. First,
he suggests solving the immediate problem, which may be a lack of sleep,
improper eating habits or overwork. Second and reminiscent of Lewis,
Guinness asserts that the long-term answer consists of "training faith so
that it is not overwhelmed by moods and emotions." One must not allow
moods to dictate to faith, but faith must control the feelings.21 Guinness
graphically describes the second remedy this way:

Unless we do this our emotions will lead us around by the
nose, and we will be captives to every passing impulse or reaction. But
once faith is trained to control the emotions and knows how to lean
resolutely against weaknesses of character, another entryway of doubt is
blocked and sealed shut forever.22

Other authors present similar suggestions for the conquering of
emotional doubt. There appears to be a wide range of agreement among
Christian scholars in a variety of disciplines that such religious
uncertainty can be dealt with primarily in cognitive terms. This process
is variously described as preaching to oneself, arguing oneself out of
moods, reasoning against doubts, or thinking in opposition to one's
feelings.23 Interestingly in terms of our earlier discussion of the
medical and the psychological models of healing, some psychiatrists are
also convinced that such cognitive methods are quite useful.24

But it should be carefully noted here that it is not being claimed that
such is the only way to treat emotional doubt. We have only said that
there is data which indicate that a cognitive approach25 is a very helpful
way to deal especially with emotional uncertainty and that there are
several Christian researchers in various disciplines who have adopted this
model.

C. A Strategy For Healing Emotional Doubt

Perhaps some are wondering how we actually begin the process of
conquering emotional doubt, given the preceding perspectives.
Surprisingly, few writers have actually presented formulas which are
immediately applicable. It will be our purpose here to do three things: to
briefly view a New Testament passage which addresses this concern,
followed by a presentation of a psychological strategy for possible
healing and the giving of some additional suggestions for the conquering
of emotional uncertainty.

1. A Biblical Pattern

The Bible contains various kinds of instruction for persons who are
suffering distress of any of several kinds.26 So it is not our purpose
here to pretend to offer advice from a single passage as if to say that
it's the only possible technique to use with hurting individuals.27 It is
only being claimed here that this particular text is a very helpful one
for dealing with anxiety (including that which is caused by doubt) from a
biblical perspective.

The passage for consideration here is Phil. 4:6-9, concerning which our
purpose will be to make some general application to religious uncertainty,
not to exegete the text per se. This is a very familiar portion of
Scripture which contains profound advice, promising the peace of God to
the one who correctly applies the principles to his life. Indeed, Robert
Mounce refers to a portion of this material as the "paragraph on mental
health."28

After telling the Philippian believers to rejoice, repeating the
injunction presumably because of the tough times they were facing (Phil.
4:4), Paul deals with the issue of anxiety (4:6). His language here
indicates that these Christians were currently in a state of worry (meden
merimnate), which may be similar to those who are presently suffering
these (or other related) symptoms due to the presence of emotional doubt.
After his statement of the problem, Paul's initial advice is to the point:
pray. Ernest Scott notes here the explicit or implicit presence of four
major aspects of prayer. Paul's treatment includes waiting upon God, which
in turn shows the weakness of man and his dependence on Him. Further,
prayer requires that Christians clearly state their requests, believing
that God can answer. Lastly, we need to thank God for His provisions.29

So Paul's initial cure for anxiety is prayer; the result is being kept
by the peace of God (4:7). The term sometimes translated "keep" (phroureo)
is a military word indicating to "guard" or to "garrison." In this
context, God's peace will act as a fortress to protect the believer's
mind.

But praying followed by thanksgiving is not the entire strategy for the
believer. Paul goes on to explain that thoughts other than those which
tend to cause anxiety need to occupy the Christian's mind (4:8). Believers
ought to concentrate, respectively, on those things which are true to
reality (alethes), honorable or holy (semnos), righteous (dikaios), clean
or pure (hagnos), on that which provokes love (prosphiles), or whatever
has a good reptation (euphema). Two other categories for one's
concentration are those thoughts which are excellent in virtue or moral
quality (arete) and whatever deserves praise (epainos). It is on truths
such as these in Phil. 4:8 that Christians are to think. Actually, this
last term, "think" (logizomai), indicates a stronger action than simply a
casual attention concerning these subjects. It refers to the process of
habitually dwelling or reflecting on a topic.

Such a single minded concentration (or meditation) on proper thoughts
needs to be practiced until it becomes a habit (4:9). Christian "modeling"
is also very important in this verse, as the more mature believer provides
a guide for other Christians. The result, again, is peace.30

From this passage, we may denote at least four biblical steps to the
conquering of anxiety such as that which might accompany emotional doubt.
These may be listed as follows:

1) believing prayer

2) thanksgiving

3) edifying thinking

4) practice

In short, the problem should be committed to God, with thanks, while
one exchanges his old, anxious thoughts for righteous ones. This ought to
be practiced until it becomes the norm. And not only are these steps
delineated for application, but healing and peace are promised to those
who follow its prescription.

2. A Psychological Approach

Several Christian psychologists have utilized chiefly cognitive methods
to assist clients with their problems. Two who support such an effort are
William Backus and Marie Chapian. Their co-authored volume, Telling
Yourself the Truth, is not specifically addressed to the issue of doubts
at all but presents a psychological approach to dealing with emotional
problems. However, their particular method, termed Misbelief Therapy, is
nonetheless applicable to emotional doubts and also makes use of biblical
passages such as Phil. 4:6-9.31 This section will endeavor to present some
of their research with specific application to emotional uncertainty.

Backus and Chapian explain that our feelings are largely caused by the
things which we tell ourselves. So if we relate untruths or lies, they
even claim that these misbeliefs "are the direct cause of emotional
turmoil, maladaptive behavior and most so-called `mental illness'."32 Even
those things which we fear happening the most in our daily lives (such as
embarrassments or failures) do not generally cause as much havoc for us as
do our misbeliefs about them. "What you think and believe determines how
you feel and what you do."33

Related to doubt, if a believer repeatedly tells himself that he is
probably going to Hell or that Christianity may not be true, it should not
be surprising if his behavior reflects these thoughts. In such cases, what
the Christian tells himself is contrary to his deepest desires and
conflict results. For Backus and Chapian, the correct response to these
misbeliefs is a threefold strategy which is reminiscent of the last two
steps of our biblical pattern from Phil. 4:6-9. They outline their
approach in the following steps:

1. Locate your misbeliefs.

2. Remove them.

3. Replace misbeliefs with the truth.34 Thus one is to listen to
oneself in order to pick out the lies which one regularly relates. Then
these misbeliefs need to be removed, which is done by arguing against them
("No, that is not true, because . . . ."). Lastly, truth is supplied in
the place of the lies. One does not simply attempt to rule out the anxious
thoughts, for example, but to replace them with the truth.35

Backus and Chapian challenge the hurting person that they can control
their own happiness. The issue is whether they wish to follow God's
prescriptions or not. Healing can occur:

. . . you can change your emotions, you can be an
adjusted and happy human being, no matter what you have experienced in
you life and no matter what your circumstances are.36

Now some may object that others can be healed but that they cannot or
that they have already tried everything but nothing works. Here Backus and
Chapian point out that this is as good of a place to begin as any. These
two objections need to be identified for what they are: lies. Whenever we
catch ourselves thinking or saying that these (or any other) misbeliefs
are true, we must stop ourselves immediately and correct them by going
through the steps stated above. While one can no doubt imagine some
reasons to believe that the misbeliefs are true, we must turn our thoughts
elsewhere. Changing our thinking can work, explain these psychologists,
"even if nothing else has because its effectiveness depends upon very
explicit psychological laws which are as universal as the law of
gravity."37

So the blame for the faulty thinking is placed squarely on the
shoulders of the one who is suffering. People and events around us don't
make us doubt or worry--the key is how we respond to and interpret these
occurrences. And changing our misbeliefs really does alter both our
feelings and our actions. While the outward circumstances may not change
right away, what we tell ourselves about them can. The change in ourselves
may be gradual and may take time, but it can happen; our problems can be
remedied.38

How does all of this apply to emotional doubts? Instead of stating (and
believing) our misbeliefs, we need to locate the lies we tell ourselves,
argue against them and cite the truth. Instead of thinking that they may
be going to Hell or that Christ may someday say "depart from me" (with no
real reason for thinking so), believers need to object and replace these
lies with the truth: "Jesus does not send saved persons to Hell. I know
this to be true based on no less of an authority than that of the
resurrected Jesus Himself. Besides, the Lord of the universe loves me and
I have a unique place with Him" (see John 3:16-18; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph.
1:3-14).

Or instead of the emotional question of whether Christianity could just
possibly be false after all, believers need to stop the query immediately
by pointing out the misbelief. One applicable truth, for instance, is that
anything could be doubted on the grounds of possibility, but wise persons
don't base their lives on such. Then the Christian's argument needs to be
one which actually recounts the factual basis for faith. A review of the
evidences might be helpful. Further truth is supplied as we train our
faith by daily practice and by not allowing emotional questions to shake
it.

Likewise, when we do not "feel" saved we must not allow a frequent
course of events to take place: an emotional letdown and further
questioning followed by a "who cares" attitude. Rather, we need to
forcefully identify the misbelief and argue against it, perhaps even with
the jolting question, "Who cares how I feel? Feelings are simply
irrelevant to the issue." Follow-up truth statements of relevant biblical
facts are then needed.

As a last example, what about the concern that God does not answer a
believer's prayers, like He has for so many others in biblical times? Once
again, the lie should immediately be identified ("God doesn't answer
prayers today"), followed by an argument such as the recounting of answers
which God has already given to both others and to ourselves. (This is why
the keeping of a list for enumerating at times like this is so very
important.) More truth is supplied by the assertion that strong believers
in biblical times like Job, David, John the Baptist and Paul also
experienced doubts, with several writers reporting the feeling that their
prayers were not answered, either! So such emotions should not be allowed
to question God's actions today or His love for me. As pointed out
earlier, the circumstances are not the chief problem; the question is what
we tell ourselves about the circumstances.

And what about complications which frequently accompany doubts, such as
depression and anxiety? While constantly emphasizing my lack of expertise
on these issues, Backus and Chapian do address these concerns from their
professional backgrounds, further extending Misbelief Therapy to each of
these topics.

They explain that depression is almost always provoked by a loss of
some sort (such as a person, an idea, health or finances), which then
causes the individual to devalue himself, his surroundings and his
prospect for the future. This condition is also identified in Scripture,
such as the person who is "cast down" (Ps. 42:5,6; 43:5).

And here, once again, each situation must be placed in perspective by
identifying the misbeliefs. Lies include telling ourselves that we cannot
go on after this loss or that the emotion itself is the worst thing in the
world. Many have faced similar losses and the accompanying feelings and
have progressed to successful lives. Backus and Chapian express it this
way:

Experience bears out the deception here. Many of us have
told ourselves we "cannot live without" some person, object, scheme or
notion. Then this adored "whatever" is removed from our lives and wonder
of wonders, we recover.39

The one who responds, "Yes, but that's someone else, not me" is
likewise stating a misbelief. This vicious cycle must be broken in order
for healing to occur properly. The lie needs to be identified and argued
against. A proper response might be, "Okay, I feel very bad, but this is
not the end of the world" or "I've felt horrible before and, with God's
assistance, I've always recovered." When a person continues to react
emotionally to a loss past a normal period of time, it is no longer the
loss but the misbelief which is crippling him and to which he is
responding.

The greatest truth we can substitute in place of the lies of depression
is that Christians are loved by God and will receive eternal blessings
from Him:

Christians don't have to base their work on achievements
or attributes. Even without any achievements and without any special
merit or attractiveness, the Christian can know for certain he/she is
important and loved. Our lives have been bought and paid for with the
blood of Jesus Christ and that means we're free from the pressure to be
something, do something, own something, achieve something or prove
something in order to be important and loved. We can do all these things
or not do them and still be loved and important.

Jesus loved [us] so much that He was willing to die on the cross so
[we] could have eternal life with Him one day, as well as a fulfilling
life here and now.40

Further, no circumstances, pain, or loss can ever change these facts
(Rom. 8:31-39). Leaning on God, we can never be ultimately disappointed,
no matter how we feel now. It is simply a fact that eternal life with
Jesus Christ not only outweighs all of our present suffering and pain, but
it gives us a tremendous perspective from which to view these problems.41

Besides, virtually all depressed persons recover. Depressed Christians
must face the truth of both probable recovery now and God's riches in
eternity.42

On the other hand, anxiety "is ordinarily defined as fear in the
absence of actual danger." It includes such "factors" as an overestimation
of the likelihood of the danger and an exaggeration of how horrible it
would be in reality.43 The "central theme" in anxiety is that what others
think about me is of "crucial importance" to my thinking.44

People teach themselves to be anxious. It is important to realize that
we create our own anxiety--not our circumstances. Again, such arises from
the lies we tell ourselves and these need to be identified as such. One
misbelief is that something "terrible" is going to happen to me:

What does "terrible" mean? Usually it means something far
worse than you think you can endure. You tell yourself the "terrible" is
beyond human endurance, worse than anything on earth. Truly, nothing of
this sort exists.45

Another lie concerns the likelihood of our fears. Anxiety by its very
nature generally involves imagining an evil which is actually very
unlikely. (How many of our worst fears over the years have actually come
true?) Yet the anxious individual tells himself that the occurrence of
this evil is unavoidable or inevitable.

We need to challenge such misbeliefs with the truth that, although we
may be feeling bad, what we are imagining has not occurred. Even if
something horrible has happened, it's not the end of a meaningful life,
for believers still have the Lord, His love and eternal life. In other
words, nothing is as terrible as we thought and, while painful things do
happen, believers still possess their ultimate hope. And as just
mentioned, the object of most anxiety never occurs at all.46

A recent psychological analysis of emotional doubt among evangelicals
by James Beck found that it frequently occurs to persons who experience
chronic uncertainty, often obsessively. Other characteristics include the
regularity of a highly developed intellect which sometimes concentrates on
minute studies of Scripture or philosophical questioning. The most common
subjects which bothered individuals in a small sampling were the fear of
having committed the unpardonable sin or other issues involving the
salvation of the believer or the nature of God. The Bible itself is even a
Source for such anxiety since the person is frequently worried by the
implications of various sorts of passages. Beck notes that such anxiety,
"characterized by irrationality and unreasonableness . . . can be one of
the most distressing and painful of all emotional disorders." He points
out that researchers from various schools of thought agree "that a major
treatment goal is to work at the intense feelings of insecurity which are
the core of the obsessive's struggles."47

Among several suggestions to assist such an individual in his emotional
healing, Beck appears to agree with Lewis that individuals suffering from
such fears as their having committed the unpardonable sin or who
misunderstand God's nature need "a better grounding in the central truths
of the Christian faith and its practice." Consequently, the doubter "may
have to be trained to keep thought structures from deteriorating into such
painful rumination."48 This last point is also somewhat reminiscent of the
methodology employed by Backus and Chapian.

But it must be stressed here that the improvement and healing of such
conditions takes time. I have seen numerous cases where individuals have
been significantly helped after just one (usually lengthy) meeting. But
very frequently the conquering of the effects of doubt takes practice,
especially so the more it is ingrained in the person. If we have reported
misbeliefs to ourselves for more than a very short time, it should not
surprise us that it also takes some time to cure the dilemma. And one key
here, again, is repetition--both when we need the biblical remedy and even
when we don't, as a preventative measure.

3. Additional Helps for Healing

We have seen that a biblical pattern for the healing of emotional
doubts in Phil. 4:6-9 and the psychological approach taken by several
Christian researchers are similar in some very important respects. There
is much agreement that emotional uncertainty needs to be confronted with a
rational approach which combines the truth with a specific volitional
action pattern. Such an avenue might involve prayer with thanksgiving,
along with locating, removing and replacing misbeliefs with edifying
truth, as well as practice until such becomes a habit. This is not the
only possible methodology for such uncertainty, but it appears to be a
biblically and psychologically sound solution.

However, in spite of the explicit "1,2,3" approach utilized here, there
is no magic number of steps which must be applied. Our purpose was to be
specific enough to get someone started down the road to improvement and
healing. But the individual who is suffering the doubt may well discover
additional pointers which may be both biblical and which function better
for him. Perhaps the best suggestion would be to apply a specific pattern
such as that in Phil. 4:6-9 or in Backus and Chapian until one is familiar
enough with the territory to change or alter the method. To that end, this
section will suggest several additional helps which may hasten the healing
process. I have known the application of each of these to be successful in
helping to treat emotional questioning. They may be used together or
separately.

a) We need to remind ourselves that emotional doubt is not primarily
factual in nature. Therefore, it does not constitute any evidence against
faith. Rather, emotional uncertainty is based on improbabilities (the
"What ifs" of life!). In short, the facts actually oppose the worry.

b) We need to minimize the problems without neglecting the correction
of them. Others have experienced the same or similar things before (I Cor.
10:13). Thus, our experience does not make us stand alone as some sort of
emotional loner. In fact, to have such experiences is even human. But we
still need to correct the faulty thinking.

c) We need to properly identify any accompanying feelings as occurring
because we are telling ourselves misbeliefs,49 not usually because we
actually want to give up the Christian faith or something similar. In
other words, when the believer responds to an issue by saying, "See, I'm
probably not saved," unwanted feelings may well occur next. But they are
usually the reaction to the misdirected statement itself, not an emotion
which further proves that we are unsaved. So fear can be quite paradoxical
in that unwanted emotions which some Christians interpret as proof of
their diabolical state are (conversely) most frequently a confirmation of
our true faith! That's primarily why we are upset at the suggestion that
we are not a believer, even when that thought was our own!

d) We need to realize that anxious states are frequently short-lived.
At any rate, these unwanted emotional responses do not have to continue.
For example, we have presented a biblical remedy to anxiety, found in
prayer and thanksgiving (even for our emotions themselves) followed by
replacing the worrisome thoughts with edifying ones, along with the
repetition of these steps (Phil. 4:6-9). In this sense, we can break the
mood and actually end the anxious state. Realizing that we can control our
own emotions should cause us to relax even in the face of the emotional
storm, calmly watching as it passes! This may sound too "flowery" to those
who are suffering anxiety, but we can actually change the emotion in this
biblically prescribed manner.

e) We need to practice thanksgiving and praise even during these
emotional states! In the passage just mentioned (Phil. 4:6-9), we are
specifically told that, during a time of anxiety, we are both to pray and
give thanks (v.6) and that the major subject for edifying thought is that
which is praiseworthy (v.8). Likewise, one of the psalmists reports his
being downcast (depressed), but goes on to say that it is actually during
these very times that he decides to praise God (Ps. 42:5-6, 11; 43:5) in
order to change his disposition. There is no more edifying thought (Phil.
4:8) than this one.

f) We also need to trust God and believe Him during these emotional
states, as well. There is no better time to develop faith in Him and
perhaps no better way to help faith grow than to practice it right during
the times while we think it is most in jeopardy. This will be more
properly dealt with in the next chapter.

At any rate, it is hoped that the principles in this section will
further compliment the biblical and psychological strategies mapped out
earlier. Emotional doubt needs to have the truth forcefully applied to it.

D. Conclusion: A Work of God

More than with factual doubt, emotional uncertainty appears to lend
itself more easily to "self-help" scenarios. But once we get the idea that
we are doing the changing, a fundamental problem results. William Backus
explains it this way:

It's frightening to undertake a book on self- control . .
. . I fear that the reader will interpret self-control as self-generated
effort. If we proceed that way, we quickly abandon the only right
ground: the grace of God.50

In our conclusion, we need to alert our readers to this problem as
forcefully as is possible. The power to change the believer's doubt is the
Lord's; personal effort and our own will do not solve the issue, so we
ought not attempt to take credit away from the Lord and to ourselves. This
is more properly the concern of the next chapter.51 Here we will just note
that Scripture has much to say about utilizing our tongues and our
thoughts in order to effect either negative or positive results.52 So
Satan can achieve negative results while God promotes positive ones (cf.
Js. 4:7-8).

One biblical means of confronting emotional doubt is to pray with
thanksgiving (even for one's emotions), replacing the anxious thoughts
with edifying ones. Continual meditation on these concepts (practice) is
also commanded (Phil. 4:6-9). A biblical approach to depression includes
praising God (Ps. 42:11; 43:5). A psychological model for healing anxiety,
depression and other problems, also making use of similar biblical
principles, recommends locating, removing and replacing our misbeliefs
which we tell ourselves.53 And as we have been careful to mention
throughout, this is not to say that other methods, such as the use of
medicine, are not also needed in appropriate cases. But at each of these
points, Scripture notes that God is the Source behind the healing, not our
own self efforts or even the practicing of certain steps.54 We will return
to this last point in the next chapter.

Endnotes--Chapter IV

1In some lectures, I have even defined emotional uncertainty as being a
"what if" doubt in order to stress this element of passion.

2Incidentally, I like to use deferent types of responses to such "what
if" queries, each of which is designed to "jolt" the doubter into a
different frame of mind. I think the best one is the answer which
basically says, "You know, you could just possibly be right. It is
possible that X might happen after all. But in light of the (admitted)
strong evidence against it, you are probably wrong and wise men choose the
best data, not extremely unlikely possibilities." I think one reason this
approach has merit is because the doubter usually does not expect me to
admit his slight possibility. But I want to show him that the issue isn't
where he thinks it is; the fact that something is possible (what isn't?)
ought not to be the major concern.

If that slight possibility still bothers him, showing the depth of the
emotional quandary, I will go straight to the more powerful remedies
listed later in this chapter. But he should also know that the type of
factual certainty which he is rejecting is as strong as finite persons in
a finite world can have, whether in science or any area of inductive
study. And the gospel can be said to be factually proven. (Again, see
Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 19-20.) On the other hand, if he rejects
my claim to certainty on these issues and does not admit my basis, then we
are probably speaking of a more factual doubt and I might have to go back
and work through the apologetic case as slowly as I need to do.

3Board terms this type of doubt as volitional (p. 15), but I think that
this is to miss the possible emotional elements, as well.

4Guest (pp. 41-42) and Lewis (Mere Christianity, p. 124) agree with
this assessment.

5As I did in the Introduction (Chapter I), I want to clearly explain
once again that I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist or professional
counselor. My professional interest in doubt arises chiefly from an
apologetic, philosophical and theological background, which perhaps at
least partially explains my emphasis on the more cognitive aspects. But it
should be

carefully noted that since this book is not a medical, psycho- logical
or counseling textbook, it therefore ought not be construed as such. Those
with problems in these areas should seek professional Christian help in
the specific area of the need(s).

6Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 123.

7This quotation is taken from what is perhaps C. S. Lewis' best writing
on doubt. See "Religion: Reality or Substitute?" in Christian Reflections,
edited by Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1967), p. 42.

8Ibid., p. 41

9Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 124.

10Ibid., p. 122.

11Blaise Pascal, Pensees: Thoughts on Religion and Other Subjects,
translated by William Finlayson Trotter, edited by H. S. Thayer (New York:
Washington Square Press, Inc., 1965), 82, entitled "Imagination." This
brief essay contains several worthwhile comments about the strength of
human imagination, before which "reason has been obliged to yield."

12Lewis, "Religion: Reality or Substitute?" p. 43.

13Ibid., p. 42.

14Ibid., p. 43.

15See Gary R. Collins, The Rebuilding of Psychology: An Integration of
Psychology and Christianity (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1977), pp. 137-138, 143-145, 150-152.

16Ibid., pp. 185, 190. See especially Chapter Ten as a whole.

17In light of the various approaches to (and definitions of) this term,
I am defining "cognitive" here as a rational approach which utilizes a
factual basis as the support for a specific volitional pattern. In other
words, holding that factual truth is available, the appeal is then to the
will to effect a strategy of healing based on that truth. But it should be
carefully noted that the description in the text at this point is not a
purely cognitive pattern of treatment. For example, behavioral changes are
also required, as they are in Scripture. Also, we ought to be thankful for
our emotions, as mentioned earlier. Again, the method encouraged here also
recognizes that several approaches are both biblical and ought to be
utilized or even combined.

18Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 123.

19Ibid., p. 124.

20Lewis, "Religion: Reality or Substitute?" p. 42.

21Guinness, pp. 163-167. Notice Guinness' stress on action coming first
in these cases.

22Ibid., p. 168.

23Board, p. 5; D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes
and its Cure (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1965), p. 20; J. I. Packer,
Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 19, 236; H.
Norman Wright, Now I Know Why I'm Depressed (Eugene: Harvest House, 1984).
Several of Larry Crabb's volumes depict similar emphases, although most of
his and the other texts in this note are not dealing primarily with the
issue of doubt.

24For example, see Paul D. Meier and Frank B. Minirth, Happiness is a
Choice (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978) for this emphasis in the
healing process written by two psychiatrists. Compare John White, The
Masks of Melancholy: A Christian Physician Looks at Depression and Suicide
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982), who judges that while cognitive
therapies do not always provide the proper approach in cases of depression
(p. 196) they are still quite useful and White himself utilizes them in
his combinational approach to this problem (p. 221).

25Neither are we suggesting that there is only one type of cognitive
approach or that each of the authors above agrees in all matters. There
certainly are varying emphases among these counselors.

26Gary Collins gives some examples on pp. 185-186.

27This is primarily why this section is entitled "A Biblical Pattern"
instead of "The" example or even the "major" counseling approach in
Scripture.

28Mounce is citing C. E. Simcox at this point. See Mounce's commentary
in "The Epistle to the Philippians" in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,
edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison (Nashville: The
Southwestern Company, 1962), p. 1330. Once again, the comment on mental
health is made in our text from a biblical vantage point, not from a
medical or psychological one.

29Ernest F. Scott, "Exegesis" of "Philippians" in The Interpreter's
Bible, edited by George A. Buttrick, twelve volumes (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1955), vol. IX, p. 113.

30For a bibliography of noteworthy volumes which comment on Phil. 4:6-9
both from somewhat different perspectives and on differing levels of
difficulty, see, in addition to Robert Mounce and Ernest Scott (above),
William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and
Thessalonians, Revised Edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1975); F. F. Bruce, Philippians: A Good News Commentary (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1983); Charles R. Eerdman, The Epistle of Paul
to the Philippians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966); William
Hendriksen, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1962); H. A. Ironside, Notes on Philippians (New York:
Loizeaux Brothers, 1922); J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the
Philippians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953); Terry L.
Miethe, A Christian's Guide to Faith and Reason (Minneapolis: Bethany
House, Publishers, 1987), Chapter 9; A. T. Robertson, Paul's Joy in
Christ: Studies in Philippians, revised and edited by W. C. Strickland
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1959); Lehman Strauss, Devotional Studies in
Philippians (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1959); Merrill C. Tenny,
Philippians: The Gospel at Work (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1956); Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies From the
Greek New Testament, Four Volumes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1966), Volume Two; John F. Walvoord, Philippians:
Triumph in Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971).

31William Backus and Marie Chapian, Telling Yourself the Truth
(Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1980), Introduction. This book is
strongly recommended and it is both readable and extremely practical. Its
tendency to get to the heart of a problem, describe the condition
intimately and propose a biblical solution which is carefully outlined and
then reviewed from various angles is, as far I know, unparalleled in the
literature of Christian counseling.

32Ibid., p. 17.

33Ibid., p.22; cf. p.20.

34Ibid., p.15.

35This might raise the issue for some regarding the difference between
techniques such as "Misbelief Therapy" and various forms of "positive
thinking." Although it is difficult to generalize for there are certainly
many different forms of the latter, some possible differences might still
be delineated. As just mentioned, the misbeliefs are not simply pushed out
("Just don't think about them any more."), but they are replaced with
biblical truths. Additionally, we are not stressing what can possibly be
("I can be a record-breaking salesman.") but rather what is already true
("God does love me."). Lastly, rather than centering on man's abilities,
powers, "divinity," or self, the power of God is the key here, as He works
through the Christian. If some type of positive thinking in fact actually
agrees on each of these points, then this should no longer be an issue;
the name of the technique is not the chief concern here. However, I still
think that the description "positive thinking" is a misnomer for the
general type of strategy which we are describing.

36Ibid., pp. 24-27, 33-34.

37Ibid., pp. 24-27; 33-34.

38Ibid., pp. 14, 17, 24-27, 75.

39Ibid., p. 43.

40Ibid., p. 40.

41Such a perspective is not just a passing concern in the New
Testament, but I believe that it is the very center of the Christian life
and the most significant way to view one's various problems. See Matt.
6:19-34; II Cor. 4:16-5:10; Phil. 3:18-21; Col. 3:1-4; I Pet. 1:3-9,
5:7-11; I Jn. 3:1-3.

42For these and other related truths, see Backus and Chapian, Chapter
4.

43Ibid., p.68; cf. pp. 72, 76.

44Ibid., p. 66.

45Ibid. p. 76.

46Ibid., see especially Chapter 6.

47James R. Beck, "Treatment of Spiritual Doubt Among Obsessing
Evangelicals," Journal of Psychology and Theology, volume 9, number 3
(Fall 1981), pp. 224-231. For these two quotations, see pp. 225, 230,
respectively.

48Ibid., p. 231; cf. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 124.

49See Backus and Chapian, p. 17.

50William Backus, Finding the Freedom of Self-Control (Minneapolis:
Bethany House Publishers, 1987), p.11.

51See Chapter V, Section A, "By Whose Will and Power?"

52See passages such as Ps. 34:13-14; 42:11; 43:5; Pro. 12:5; 15:4;
23:7; Matt. 9:29; II Cor. 10:5; Phil. 4:13.

53As stated earlier, Backus and Chapian conducted a follow-up study and
reported a 95% improvement rate after the application of this Misbelief
Therapy. (See Backus and Chapian, Introduction, p. 11.)

54Some of the same passages which encourage us to take positive action
also explicitly state that it is God's power that is actually the key.
(See II Cor. 10:5 and Phil. 4:13 plus Chapter VI, A for details.)

Chapter
V
Volitional Doubt

Our third category of uncertainty is chiefly related to one's will and
one's ability to make certain choices. Regular issues of importance for
this species of doubt might include the dilemma of weak faith or the
questioning of whether one actually made a decision to trust Jesus Christ
in the first place perhaps because of the young age at which the choice
was made. Other volitional examples concern an unwillingness either to
repent of a sin(s) or to apply known truths to one's life.

Characteristics of volitional doubt may possibly involve an attitude of
appreciation for the facts, while not really being willing to make the
appropriate decision which seems to be indicated by them (without any
objection to the data itself or its applicability). Or sometimes such
identification is made by the realization that no number of facts ever
brings the individual to the appropriate decision.1 Or again, the person
may continue to raise small, inconsequential "problems" which are
obviously not the chief issues.

Another possible characteristic is a person's refusal to allow the
continuation of the peace which he sometimes experiences, perhaps because
the individual either misunderstands the nature of such peace or because
he might believe that he is not ready to experience it until the last few
issues are settled. I remember a discussion with a psychologist friend of
mine years ago where the topic was a mutual acquaintance who had been
struggling through a quandary over just this issue. At one point in our
dialogue the psychologist asked me if I thought peace was itself a feeling
which one had (emotional) or something which was brought about by a
decision which one made (volitional). I answered that it was a feeling,
after which I was startled by my friend's strong pronouncement that I was
mistaken: peace was obtained by a decision.

Peace is not something which one necessarily "feels" but is a state of
mind which occurs only by decision. Therefore, peace can be present even
when a person is undergoing various sorts of turmoil. And in this sense
the failure to have peace, especially when the way appears to be clear, is
very possibly due to a volitional quandary since its absence is also a
choice which is not being made. And at this point it perhaps becomes
apparent in one respect that all doubt may have a volitional element
because the individual both chooses to question and can decide not to do
so, as well. Similarly, the desire to cover up sin or the refusal to
confess and repent of it also tends generally to be a matter of the will.

In the last chapter it was mentioned that volitional and emotional
doubt shared at least two characteristics which were just mentioned--the
presence of small, "picky" problems and the refusal of peace. This raises
the further issue of distinguishing between these two species of
uncertainty at these points. I have already suggested that the key lies in
both the origin of each individual doubt and the means by which it
manifests itself. For instance doubt which is primarily volitional is
likely to be expressed more calmly, without complications due to
distraught emotional states. It may also tend to center much more on
decision-making concerns, perhaps on why the person appears unable to
actually effect a change in his life. And it is this crucial issue to
which we now turn.

A. By Whose Will and Power?

Before we can actually discuss the activation of the will, we need to
answer a tough question. It may be recalled that we ended the last chapter
by posing a quandary raised by Backus, who testified that a "frightening"
aspect of dealing with the issue of self-control was that Christians might
conclude that they can change their behavior by a self-generated effort,
thereby undermining the power of God.2

The problem here is a least threefold. Initially, only God can save
persons. Absolutely nothing which we do can ever assist Him even one iota
in our salvation and justification. Such is simply an act of God. And I
hope the reader understands that this book has been written to Christians
who have therefore already received God's gift of salvation. Thus I by no
means wish to imply that we can ever effect our initial relationship with
God or have any part in earning God's merit.

But additionally, even from Christians one can certainly get the
frequent impression that it is possible to improve our initial standing
with God by our good works after salvation. But the biblical testimony is
that, while one's heavenly position (or rewards) is determined by
post-conversion commitment, once we begin the Christian life by faith we
ought never return to any view which holds that our works can complete the
initial salvation itself. Such is even an abomination to God (Gal. 3:1-14;
5:1-6).

Further, while Scripture often encourages Christians to change their
behavior and to progress towards maturity, it is clear that God is at work
in their lives so that it is His power working through believers instead
of their own. We cannot at this point introduce the entire issue of God's
sovereignty and man's free will (as if we could completely solve it!), but
it is sufficient here simply to say that Scripture both commands us to
mature and states that the real power comes from the Lord.

So while many New Testament passages implore the believer to change his
behavior (or to otherwise commit himself),3 several texts mention that
both God's activity and ours is involved.4 A classic text is found in
Phil. 2:12-13 where we are first told that believers are to "work out"
their salvation (v. 12) only to find that it is God who is working in us
(v. 13). In other places Paul states more specifically that it is not our
power but that of God's power in us (II Cor. 4:7; 10:3-6; Gal. 2:20). Yet
it is our choice to so act in accordance with God's will and power (Gal.
5:16-26; Eph. 6:10-18; Phil. 4:13). Other New Testament writers agree that
believers must will to do God's will (Js. 4:4-10; I Pet. 1:18-2:5; I Jn.
3:23-24).

Thus, while Christians are commanded to make decisions by their own
will, the more important will and true power is that of God. This in no
way allows the believer to claim that his choice is not crucial, for we
are specifically told that we are to choose to do God's will so that He
can work through us; God does not force our wills.

So how does Backus face his own dilemma? First he poses the problem
again, asking how a counselor can assist persons in need without implying
some sort of self-effort? He answers:

Despite this hazard, the Scriptures contain much
instruction in how to change behavior, thoughts and feelings. But it is
never suggested in the apostolic writings that the power to change comes
from the self. Instead, the Word exhorts and instructs the new man,
empowered by the Holy Spirit, in how to walk so as to please God.5

There is at least one other sense in which it is actually God who works
through believers. The universe which God has created has certain laws
built into it; when one acts in accordance with them, a more harmonious
life can be one result. For this reason, obeying His psychological laws
can yield healing in one's thought life. In fact, even nonbelievers can to
some extent take advantage of this benefit. Again Backus comments:

None of the habit-changing techniques suggested in this
book can work without God's blessing. That is true even for unbelievers
making use of them. As His sun must shine even on the evil if their
crops are to grow, so the sun of God's blessing can and does shine even
on godless people using methods in line with God's principles,
incorporated in His Word and in the design of His universe. Without
God's sustaining blessing, no human effort would avail anything--ever.6

Thus God works in persons, both more generally through His universal
laws which affect both believers and unbelievers alike, as well as more
specifically through Christians whose wills are in accordance with His
will. But in both cases it is God's will which is more central and His
power which is the true force in the universe. This provides a groundwork
for our discussion of the Christian's will.

B. Activating the Christian's Will

We have observed that numerous scriptural passages encourage, implore
and command Christians to utilize their own wills to obey the Lord. And
believers are also responsible for their choices.

With regard to the specific issue of volitional doubt and the failure
to act at crucial points in order to change one's behavior, perhaps the
most critical single concern is the growth of the believer's faith. When
one's faith becomes increasingly inactive there is frequently a tendency
to drift away from crucial elements of Christianity. And as noted earlier,
C. S. Lewis warns that most apostates are not argued away from
Christianity: "Do not most people simply drift away?"7

So a lack of growth or commitment in a believer's life can signal a
volitional problem. And as with most matters of the will, it often "spills
over" into other areas. This is where one develops (and often invents)
problems with Christianity, which may perhaps amount to excuses for the
doubt which has already existed for some time.

Noting the utter seriousness of this species of doubt, attacking as it
does the very resolution of the believer, one obvious question pertains to
how a Christian's will can be activated (or re-activated). And since the
most crucial subject in volitional doubt is probably the issue of how
one's faith can grow, this will be an especially important topic for those
whose commitment to Jesus Christ is either weak, immature or even waning.

So our concern is to help activate the believer's will and, as a
specific expression of one's volition, to experience the growth of one's
faith, as well. The former issue, in the general sense of changing one's
behavior or breaking bad habits, is only of major concern to us as it
impinges specifically on the presence of doubt. Otherwise it is much less
the subject of this book than is the latter concern of faith. We have just
indicated that the topic of how faith might grow is probably the single
most crucial element in volitional doubt. This is primarily because most
of the types of such uncertainty are concerned with (or are dealt with
significantly by) the strength of one's faith.

In some cases, the solution would appear to be less problematical. In
the case of those who trusted Christ as a child, the issue might concern
the gaining of more knowledge about the nature of commitment or even of
making a re-commitment. But for many others, motivation is a major factor;
they need to desire to do God's will. To this end, I will suggest four
steps to assist the believer in dealing with such a dilemma.

First, any strategy to assist the Christian's will in conforming to
God's will should begin with a commitment to Him.8 After all, if this is
one's goal anyway, one should prayerfully communicate his intentions to
submit to God at the outset. The act itself is helpful not only in
affirming one's desire to the Lord, but in focusing one's attention on the
goal and its seriousness. And if the type of volitional doubt suffered is
one that has involved rebellion against the Lord, this would also be the
time to confess and repent of that sin. Earlier we mentioned that
unconfessed sin can, by itself, lead to doubt (cf. Ps. 66:18).

Second, a principle described in the last chapter will be repeated
briefly here. Doubts of the will also most frequently involve telling
oneself misbeliefs. Backus lists several instances of lies which affect
one's volitional capabilities.9 For example, one might say or think that,
"I can't control this habit" or, "Past events are making me do what I am."
Some criticize their own person: "I'm so worthless that I deserve my
problem." Other common responses include the misbelief that, "Others can
be committed believers, but I just can't do it" or, "It takes too much
work to change a habit or to more fully obey the Lord." Also very harmful
to the overall goal of conquering volitional doubt is the lie that, "I
can't increase my faith."

In the last chapter we have already discussed in some detail the
treatment of these misbeliefs.10 To summarize, the chief strategy consists
of locating these lies, removing them by arguing against them and
replacing them with the truth. Numerous other suggestions for healing were
also enumerated.

The chief purpose in this step is to remove the misbeliefs which we
tell ourselves in order to both clear the major obstacles which often keep
the believer's will from being exercised and to utilize the administering
of truth to actually start the healing process. In other words, Misbelief
Therapy11 can both weed out harmful thinking which affects an individual's
ability to act, as well as allowing truth to motivate the person to the
godly action which he wills.

Third, faith needs to be challenged; it needs to be given an ongoing
vision which will inspire it to action. Human beings act most purposefully
when they have strong personal reasons for doing so. And so faith is best
motivated not by rules and prodding (although such is valid and is
sometimes needed), but when God's reasons for seeking Him first become our
reasons and desires. That is, when we are inspired enough by God's
perspective of reality that we internalize His reasons as our own, then
faith will be ready for action.

For some Christians, such inspiration might be said to occur when they
get a glimpse of God's Person and His holiness,12 or when they actually
realize that Jesus is a living Person, making a personal relationship with
Him possible.13 According to Peter Kreeft, the deepest desire of all
believers is for eternal life in heaven with God.14 I mentioned in the
last chapter that such an eternal home is the central hope for believers
and that the New Testament repeatedly teaches that this is the perspective
from which Christians ought to view this life.15

Actually, each of the subjects in the last paragraph is a different
angle on a very similar truth. Believers naturally have a deep desire to
know God and to be with Him forever. In fact, our Creator has made us that
way (cf. Eccl. 3:11). Further, I think that this idea is the most
motivating one for the Christian's faith. Could anything be more appealing
than eternal life with the God of the universe, Who guarantees that such
life will always be new, creative and inspiring, never static or boring?
For the believer who does not sense a "tug" of desire for such, I would
recommend that he cultivate the New Testament teachings on this subject,
meditating on them deeply. Faith could have no greater impetus as a
grounds for personal action; no stronger reasons to internalize God's
perspective as our own could be given.

Fourth, faith must be activated. Once a commitment has been made,
misbeliefs replaced and faith challenged with a biblical vision, the next
step is performance. Our eternal destiny needs to inspire action and when
it does so biblically it will have passed beyond the negative battle of
fighting against doubt and into the positive realm of development in its
own regard. Guinness states it this way:

What is more, faith, like health, is best maintained by
growth, nourishment and exercise and not by fighting sickness . . . .
Equally, faith grows and flourishes when it is well nourished and
exercised, so the best way to resist doubt is to build up faith rather
than simply to fight against doubt.16

The faith which is growing, then, is more healthy than that which is
simply fighting against invasion. So we not only wish to provide
strategies for handling doubt of various kinds, but, further, to both
activate the will and to see faith grow. But of course, one question which
this raises is how faith does progress. Years ago, I would have said that
answering this question successfully was the key to solving my own doubts.

While this topic could easily be the subject of an entire treatise
itself, a few brief comments will be made here. After his research on this
topic, Elmer Towns has noted numerous ways in which faith grows. Among
these are obedience to the Word of God, yielding to the Holy Spirit during
trials, by constant communion with God (through the various disciplines of
prayer, fellowship and Christian service), by expecting God to act or
bless and by giving thanks to God.17 Conversely, Towns explains that faith
is hindered by such things as believing a lie, trusting one's reason
instead of God's Word, "leaping" without a basis, always requiring a sign
from God and taking a "small" view of life instead of seeing the large
picture.18

Each of these topics and others could be expounded at great length, but
such, perhaps regrettably, takes us away from our present topic. I think
that possibly the most important thing which I could relate here is that,
wherever our faith is, we need to take it from that point and move it
forward by small steps. The actual "how" of this suggestion will be saved
for the next section of this chapter, but it will just be briefly
mentioned that developing faith during times of doubt may be one of the
most effective methods of causing faith to grow. In other words, since
many of the readers of this book are presumably dealing with their own
doubt, why not use such as an opportunity to let one's faith grow? It just
may be that doubt could be conquered and faith grow, simultaneously.

But perhaps someone might react by asking what about the believer who
decides not to act and who rejects such strategies? Initially, it should
be pointed out that everything which is said in this entire book could be
rejected, for no one is forcing anyone to act. One could always refuse to
take appropriate measures in solving any of the species of doubt, or on
any other issue.

Additionally, other suggestions certainly could be made concerning the
activation of one's will. For example, Backus encourages writing out a
plan, including the enumeration of specific strategies, making clear and
specific goals, and telling someone else about one's efforts in order to
provide further motivation to change.19 Such an approach would also appear
to work well with the more general topic of the weaknesses of the will,
including specific problems such as changing one's behavior, repentance,
or breaking bad habits.20 And again, as with other species of uncertainty,
the doubter should adopt a biblical methodology which best assists his
special needs.

But in this chapter we have suggested a fourfold strategy: that the
doubter make an initial commitment to God (including repentance, if
necessary), identify and replace his misbeliefs, challenge his faith with
the vision to personally internalize God's eternal perspective, followed
by action. One specific result should be an increase in one's faith. And
in dealing with volitional doubt by this strategy, we have attempted to
address both the more general issue of activating the believer's will with
respect to making decisions (as with the use of Misbelief Therapy) and the
more specific task of challenging faith and helping it to grow. We will
now continue our discussion by making suggestions as to how faith in Jesus
Christ, in particular, might be encouraged to increase.

C. Exercising More Faith in Jesus Christ

It is our purpose in this section to more specifically view the issue
of developing faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. We will look at this
topic from two primary vantage points, each presented as questions. Should
Christians continue to believe even when tough objections are raised
against Christianity? And how do we actually practice belief, allowing it
to grow?

In an essay entitled "On Obstinacy in Belief," C. S. Lewis entertains
the first of these queries by admitting that believers do in fact think
that it is laudatory to adhere to their faith in Christianity "against any
evidence whatever."21 But how can such obstinacy be defended? Why should
Christians continue to believe in the face of possible objections to their
faith? Shouldn't they, like good scientists, only proportion their belief
to the facts?

Here Lewis proposes two answers. He defends such a continuing
commitment holding, first, that Christianity is supported by the facts. So
why should believers despair when the evidence (both of the past and
present) continues to support the Christian message? Second, God is
personal and, as such, should not be treated as the object of a laboratory
experiment, but as a Friend with whom we are intimately involved. But to
truly treat anyone as a friend is sometimes to trust that person "beyond
the evidence, even against much evidence."22 And conversely, no one
deserves to be called a friend who deserts us when we are accused of
something or who is not extremely cautious about accepting purported
evidence against us. In fact, even the scientist must behave the same way
if he is to have close friendships with others. This is shown by the way
in which he will hold certain beliefs about those who are closest to him
"with more certitude than the evidence, if weighed in the laboratory
manner, would justify."23

Sometimes we must trust persons in the face of contrary evidence. The
child with the splinter in his finger confronted by a needle or an
individual learning to swim when he is forced to enter deep water for the
first time may claim some reason for disbelieving that their best
interests are being taken into consideration. But those who know better
(and the child and the swimmer afterwards) usually understand the logic.
Should an omnipotent God not have many ways which we do not understand?
Besides, God has even warned us explicitly that there will be times when
"apparent evidence" will be presented (including miracles) in an attempt
to lead Christians astray (Mk. 13:22-23; II Thes. 2:9-12; Rev. 13:13-14).
It is as if God is saying, "I told you so" (see especially Mk. 13:23). So
why should we disbelieve, especially when we have good data on which to
accept His testimony concerning this and other issues?24

So Lewis concludes:

Our opponents, then, have a perfect right to dispute with
us about the grounds of our original assent. But they must not accuse us
of sheer insanity if, after the assent has been given, our adherence to
it is no longer proportioned to every fluctuation of the apparent
evidence.25

And here, I think, Lewis is certainly correct. Once a sufficient basis
has been ascertained, it is a virtue to continuing trusting in personal
situations. It is not only true of friendships, but even in scientific
theory. Scientists do not discard a model every time one (or even several)
bits of data oppose their central thesis or framework.

1. Why Christians Should Continue to Trust Jesus Christ

This previous discussion, along with some additional considerations,
provide ample reasons as to why we should continue to trust even when some
apparent data which we are not able to explain opposes our position. We
will give brief attention to several of these reasons.

First, an individual's salvation consists of trusting faith in the
Jesus Christ of the gospel facts. And it must not be forgotten that our
initial trust was well grounded in the factual data of the gospel, whether
we realized it or not. This evidence is so strong that trust in other
matters is warranted. In other words, the evidence for the facts of the
gospel (and hence the central core of Christian theism) is sufficiently
strong that it provides an extremely firm foundation for our continued
faith even when other factors have not been totally explained. It even
compels us to keep trusting until the new questions are worked out.

As we have already stated, science works in a similar manner. It does
not overturn a model because some data are outstanding against it. If the
original model is confirmed by a broad set of evidences, claimed
exceptions are often either given tentative explanations, or judgment on
the anomalies is simply suspended until more is known.26

Similarly, the Christian is warranted in continued belief in Jesus
Christ even if there are issues he is not able to explain. The chief
reason for this is that the gospel facts, in particular, are established
on especially strong grounds. Anomalies do not overturn the core data of
Christian theism. It might even be said that since the gospel data is so
strong, other questions are often of somewhat less consequence anyway.

But second, beyond the facts themselves and the basic model to which
they contribute, we have also said that Jesus is a person and that our
relationship to him is a personal one. The more we realize this and
believe it, the more it will be obvious to us that our commitment extends
even beyond the evidence. Just as an individual ought not to desert his
best friend when the latter is in trouble, or as a lover ought not to
abandon his loved one on the basis of a complaint or because there are
some perceived problems in the relationship, so Jesus ought not to be
disbelieved if contrary material surfaces. Relationships extend beyond the
raw data on which they are based, and trusting Jesus extends beyond the
strongly evidenced gospel facts.

Once when I was in the middle of quandary, worried that I was beginning
to give up on my relationship with Jesus, my mother confronted me with a
truth that I have never forgotten since that time. She asked me pointedly
if I was willing to give up Jesus right then. When I responded by
reporting my fear that I might stop believing, she repeated her question
as to whether I would trade Jesus for someone else right now. As I
responded in the negative (in fact, I was repulsed by the very thought),
she asked me why that was so. And as I verbalized my answer, I realized
something crucial: I didn't want to give up Jesus precisely because I had
developed a personal relationship with Him and didn't want to follow any
other person or teaching.

But I learned some other truths that day, as well. I realized that I
should not allow my will to be "frozen" in indecision by an emotional fear
of the future, or by a "what if" doubt concerning the present. I also was
confronted by something else which I had never quite allowed to play a
role in my fight against doubt before: I knew then that I was in love with
Jesus. The moment that truth dawned on me, my struggle took on an entirely
new dimension.

But my point here is that such a position of personal trust is not
illogical; it is actually warranted by the data itself. Just as the
initial decision was based on the facts, the resultant personal
relationship is also, for one realizes that continuing and deepening
commitment is based on what one knows about the Person. It is true of
personal relationships in everyday life, as well.

A third reason to trust Jesus in the face of any new objections is that
other formerly unexplained problems have since been dealt with
sufficiently. What constitutes such issues are frequently person-related,
indicating that individuals may have different examples in mind, but it is
still true that many have been solved. To cite our own subjects in an
earlier chapter, perhaps questions about Jesus' death or resurrection have
bothered some believers; others may have wondered how it can be known that
Jesus claimed to be deity. But the point is that the more one personally
discovers answers to quandaries, the more one realizes that Jesus has
proven trustworthy in the past. This should inspire more faith in
believers, just like finding several times that my wife was trustworthy
should enhance our relationship.

So to answer our initial query concerning why a believer should
continue to trust Jesus Christ even in the presence of some unexplained,
perhaps even contrary data, we have noted three responses. The central
foundation for Christian Theism (as seen in the facts of the gospel) is
proven to be firm. In light of this, other difficult data can be given a
possible explanation or judgment may even be suspended, as scientific
methodology also allows. Additionally, the believer's relationship is a
personal one, demanding trust even beyond the initial evidence itself.
Lastly, many potentially troublesome issues have been largely solved,
contributing to the major conclusion that He has already proven to be
trustworthy.

2. How Faith Might Be Increased

After attempting to lay a foundation for why a believer should continue
to trust Jesus Christ even during times of uncertainty, we will now make a
couple of suggestions as to how such faith might be exercised further. Two
such points will be mentioned here.

First, one can sometimes get the impression that there is a
misunderstanding of the nature of faith among some Christians who appear
to understand it as sort of a "weaker sister" to the facts; as a passive
"given" which simply occurs on cue after the data has been ascertained.
Actually, while it is true that faith is based on the facts, this does not
make it one iota less crucial, for the data of the gospel message and
one's trust are equally important.

Additionally, faith is active, especially in that its chief importance
is to personally trust the Jesus Christ of the facts. And here it should
be pointed out that the New Testament term (pisteuo) is a very strong word
compared to its English equivalent, indicating a commitment or surrender
of oneself. In this case the yielding is to the Person of Jesus Christ.

And while lost Christians probably agree with this usage of faith, they
often don't seem to realize that there is a further activity of faith: its
ability to appropriate the truth so as to control doubts. We may recall
Lewis' words at this juncture that, "Faith, in the sense in which I am
here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has
once accepted, in spite of your changing moods."27 Thus, one place to
start in an attempt to increase faith is to realize the potential that it
has and that which it can accomplish. By a personal appropriation of the
facts, which reason itself can never do, a believer's faith can be trained
to stand firm.

Second, a technique which may be very helpful in increasing faith is to
be applied during a period of doubt. In our treatment of emotional
uncertainty it was suggested that the believer needs to actually practice
both praise and thanksgiving, on the one hand, and faith on the other,
while one is experiencing uncertainty. Thus, even the time when one feels
the most unsure of his belief is an excellent opportunity to affirm that
very trust. And such practice involves truth-telling, as well, since we
are actually asserting our belief both to God and to ourselves. What one,
in essence, is telling the Lord is that, "I still believe in you during
the times when I don't feel good and even when I can't presently see my
way out of my uncertainty."

Of course, some may object that if one isn't sure of the factual basis,
then affirming one's faith may have little real affect. But it must be
remembered that this chapter is a treatment of volitional doubt. Factual
objections are handled in a different manner, as pointed out in Chapter
III. Thus, if the doubts in question are factual, a study of the data may
be necessary. But if the factual foundation is realized, then affirming
faith during doubt is an excellent method to confront volitional
uncertainty and so encourage that faith to grow.

I think that there are several benefits of such an affirmation, such as
our demonstrating that we are not relying on our feelings, that we are
really serious about correcting our doubt and that we are willing to obey
God in offering thanks and praise during our difficult times (Phil. 4:6,
8). But for our purposes here, another major benefit is that such actually
allows our faith to grow by teaching us that we can practice it during the
really difficult times. We will have placed (and properly so) our wills
above our feelings. And after such practice, we awake to the realization
that our faith has in fact grown, as revealed by our readiness to trust
more readily the next time we doubt.

Two biblical illustrations aptly point out these lessons. Job suffered
much pain and yet it was right in the middle of his hurting that he
learned to trust God (Job 38-42). Even though he still did not understand
why he suffered like he did, Job learned that God was trustworthy. As a
result, he responded during his uncertainty (Job 40:3-5; 42:1-6) and found
victory (42:7-17).

Paul tells us that Abraham believed God's promise that he would have a
child in spite of his age and that of Sarah, his wife (Rom. 4:18-25). So
while he could not see God's promise, he still trusted the One who had
shown Himself to be trustworthy. In fact, he did so in this instance even
when all the evidence appeared to point against him (v.18)! As a result,
Abraham's faith blossomed into a life of trust (Heb. 11:8-12, 17-19).

Christians can grow in faith in a similar manner. Like Job and Abraham,
believers know enough about God to trust Him in issues where we are not
sure of the answers. In the words of a great devotional writer of the last
generation, it is right during our times of struggle and doubt that we,
too, can experience the victory of our faith. F. B. Meyer recommends this
prayer to God during these times of uncertainty:

My God, the spring tide of emotion has passed away like a
summer brook; but in my heart of hearts, in my will, Thou Knowest I am
as devoted, as loyal, as desirous to be only for Thee, as in the blessed
moment of unbroken retirement at Thy feet.28

So must the believer pursue the growth of his faith even during times
of doubt. In fact, it is during these periods when one can perhaps most
effectively develop it by being willing to praise, thank and trust God
even when there is no easy answer. Such practice allows God to work in us
while we learn of our dependence upon Him.

D. Doubt Prevention

All the way throughout this entire section of the book we have
presented descriptions of and strategies for conquering various types of
doubt. But here we wish to view the overall issue from a different angle.
The best approach to doubt is one which practices Christian living in such
a way so as to prevent uncertainty ahead of time. Just as preventative
medicine is rightly stressed by the medical community, so doubt prevention
ought to be stressed by believers. In other words, Christians ought to be
practicing "positive spiritual health" techniques before uncertainty
strikes as a means not only of providing a barrier against doubt but also
in the interest of cultivating the broader spiritual life, as well.

Another way to view this suggestion is by recognizing that regular
Christian activities such as prayer, Bible reading and study, fellowship
and witnessing about our faith to others have a crucial added dimension
not normally appreciated: fighting uncertainty. We might also repeat here
Lewis' assertion that practices such as these on a daily basis also serve
to build up faith so that it, too, might habitually react in a biblical
manner.29 While I am far from an expert in the application of these areas,
I would like to just briefly mention a few suggestions, followed by a
brief treatment of another Christian discipline which is seldom recognized
for its value and distinction.

With regard to prayer, several items are crucial but appear to be
mentioned comparatively seldom; and each has to do with Christian
"truth-telling." Prayer is a personal venture; as such it demands that
certain conditions be met. The Scripture requires at least previous
confession of sin (Ps. 66:18; I Jn. 1:9), obedience (Jn. 15:7; I Jn.
3:22), praying in Jesus' name (Jn. 16:23; 14:13, 14) and according to
God's will (I Jn. 5:14, 15). Faith in God is also needed (Js. 1:5-8; Mk.
11:24). But the way prayer is sometime practiced, Christians prefer to
ignore or downplay the relationship while demanding answers. We claim that
we are not treating God as a spiritual slot-machine but our methods often
betray us. Would our loved ones be satisfied with the same amount of time
and effort which we often devote to our relationship with God?

Two other brief misbeliefs concerning prayer are that God almost always
answered prayer in biblical times and that He does not answer it as
frequently for us today. But the biblical record simply shows that the
first notion does not take account of the many times when biblical authors
report unanswered prayer (in their terms!) and the rather sizeable periods
of time when God was more-or-less silent in His communication with His
people. This does not criticize the God of the universe; it only corrects
a common misbelief.30 Concerning answered prayer today, I think it is
undeniable that rather fantastic answers occur regularly. But Christians
interested in personal responses would do well to give attention to both
the quality of the time spent with the Lord (He is a personal Being also!)
and begin keeping a record of their prayers (and those of others) which
were answered. Nothing corrects the second misbelief as quickly as a
black-and-white list which contradicts the assumption itself.

More briefly, Bible reading and study can also serve as a crucially
important roadblock to doubt. But as Guinness reminds us, we must be
willing to give God's Word more concentration than we frequently do, being
willing to sit under its judgment and being more receptive in its
application to our lives.31 Fellowship with believers and our witness to
non-believers are also central in our overall plan. With regard to the
former, social and emotional reinforcement are so vital to our continuing
growth and fellowship helps to provide these needs; we are often oblivious
to the opposite affects in our lives which contribute to the occurrence of
doubt. With the latter, not only is it a chief means by which others are
led by the Holy Spirit into God's blessings, but it likewise assists us in
realizing anew that God still works in lives even today.

So in our attempt to prevent doubt ahead of time, we will close by
remembering two truths. The overall emphasis of such preventive measures
is the continual cultivation of a personal relationship with a personal
God, spurred on by the practice not only of these spiritual disciplines,
but also of the appropriate techniques for the treatment of each of the
major species of doubt, which has been the subject of much of this volume.
We must not fail to work on the first (as indicated in this section) and
not be weary in the repeated renewal of the second. I think that these are
keys to doubt prevention. Now we will turn to another spiritual discipline
which can uniquely address each of these concerns, including the
controlling of uncertainty, but which is largely a "lost art" among
Christians today.32

E. Biblical Meditation

It is perhaps true that various forms of Eastern meditation techniques
are better known in the West than are biblical methods. The former is a
very broad category which generally emphasizes generally the emptying of
one's mind of typical thought patterns, the disuse of reason and
concentration on a word or puzzle which is supposed to be helpful in the
achieving of a new level of consciousness.33 On the other hand, the
biblical pattern emphasizes what is frequently almost the opposite: the
filling of the believer's mind by the thoughtful contemplation of any of a
number of God's truths.34

Scripture (and Psalms, in particular) relates many details concerning
meditation. As to its method, individuals apparently practiced it alone35
by single-minded concentration on a particular theme.36 Repetition of such
thoughts was also normal fare.37

The most common topic mentioned in Scripture for the person's
meditation is God's Law or His words. Various other themes include the
attributes of God, His creation and works, His miracles, His promises,
eternal life, and other edifying thoughts. In this last category, it is
praiseworthy thinking, in particular, which is stressed.38 But it should
be remembered that picturing God Himself in our meditation is simply
constructing an idol of Him. Thus, visualizing God is a form of idolatry
(Ex. 20:4-6).

Wonderful blessings are promised to those who meditate. We are told
that practitioners can receive guidance, protection, success, prospering,
wisdom, understanding, and knowledge.39

So how should the believer today practice meditation? McCormick and
Fish suggest concentrating single mindedly on one of the many themes which
believers have from which to choose; rotating them on a daily (or
otherwise regular) basis produces not only variety but also the
opportunity to grow in several different areas. They not only briefly
describe the process in biblical terms, but also provide numerous examples
of content for possible meditation sessions.40

In terms of the subject of doubt in general (and its prevention in
particular), meditation remains a powerful but largely unpracticed
procedure. By its daily use, it certainly has the potential to transform
lives. I personally could not recommend a better means not only to
regularly review the actual strategies for controlling doubt, such as
those outlined in this volume, but also to draw closer to God. In other
words, one can actually review the biblical steps for combating
uncertainty during meditation. It could well be the single "missing
ingredient" in many Christian lives today.

F. Conclusion

In a lecture on the relationship between the believer's intellect and
faith, Francis Schaeffer points out that the major problem is not whether
there is enough evidence for Christianity, for there is plenty of such
data. Rather, the real issue, Schaeffer explains, is whether we believe
God in spite of the proof. In other words, evidence not only doesn't force
faith, but for some it may even be a facade in that a continual search for
such facts hides the need to let faith grow. God wants us to believe in
Him continually, at every moment, both when we are exuberant and when we
are despondent, as well as at other times. So even when we are
psychologically beaten, we must continue to believe in God, especially
during those times when we do not even know the source of our troubles.41

The believer's faith needs to grow, most particularly during periods of
doubt. So Christians need to be strengthened beyond the point where, as a
colleague once remarked, their faith is dependent on the latest
archaeological discovery. Accordingly, this chapter has attempted to set
forth principles to remedy this situation. But it must be remembered here
that it is God's power which is the key: believer's wills ought to be
brought into conformity with His will.

I have suggested that the individual suffering volitional doubt begin
with a commitment to God (including repentance, if necessary), next
applying the principles of Misbelief Therapy (as explained in Chapter IV).
One of the most important steps is the challenging of one's faith to view
reality from God's eternal perspective. A heavenly motivation should
assist us in the internalizing of God's reasons for action, making these
reasons our own. Lastly, faith in Jesus Christ as a Person must be further
activated.

It was suggested that the last point can be facilitated by both
realizing that believers already have a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ and by cultivating those ties. In fact, the best time to develop
such faith could paradoxically be right during one's doubts.

Once doubt is dealt with, the best long-term remedy is to practice a
biblical pattern of doubt-prevention. Such should not only involve the
regular Christian practices of prayer, Bible study, fellowship and
witnessing, but these should be joined by biblical meditation. And in each
of these, part of the focus should explicitly be on the continual review
of various patterns for controlling doubt, such as those described in this
volume. Practice is essential, as well.

Of course, as human beings it is not always easy to work on problems
and repeatedly deal with painful issues. But we said earlier that the
regular testimony of those who practice such exercises is that, when
properly applied, there is much relief; when such is not done, problems
frequently remain. So while discipline is not always easy, it is crucially
important. As Backus explains:

The self-controlled person maintains progress toward a
goal even when he is not in the mood, doesn't feel like making the
effort, would momentarily enjoy something else, or finds working toward
his goal downright unpleasant.42

If doubt is handled in a biblical manner,43 peace can definitely be the
result. And as we have said, peace is obtained through a decision (cf.
Rom. 15:13), so it can remain in spite of one's outward circumstances. Any
new problems or challenges to the presence of this peace can also be
treated by proper identification followed by an application of appropriate
biblical remedies, whether those described here or others.

Endnotes--Chapter V

1Although these statements might be said about the unbeliever who
refuses to trust Jesus Christ (and this would still be a volitional
issue), it should be remembered that we are primarily writing to (and
about) Christians who still experience volitional problems.

2Backus, Finding the Freedom of Self-Control, p. 11. Actually, Backus
begins this volume with this concern.

3For examples of the many such references, see Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 6:4-5,
9-10; Heb. 10:36; Js. 4:4-10; I Pet. 5:7-11; II Pet. 3:18; I Jn. 2:3-6; II
Jn. 9; Rev. 22:7.

4See especially II Cor. 4:5, 7; 10:3-6; 12:9-10; Gal 2:20; 5:16-26;
Eph. 6:10-18; Phil. 2:12-13; 4:13; I Pet. 1:18-25; I Jn. 3:23-24.

5Backus, p. 16.

6Ibid., p. 172.

7Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 124.

8Again, since this is written to the believer, we are not speaking of
the initial experience of salvation but a re- commitment of one's will to
the Lord (cf. Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 5:18).

9Backus, especially pp. 158-161.

10See Chapter IV, Section C and Backus and Chapian, especially Chapters
1-4, 6.

11This is the title given by Backus and Chapian, p. 10.

12We have already cited J. I. Packer's volume, Knowing God, which is
described by the author as a book of meditations on this subject (pp. 7,
17). See also R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Wheaton: Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., 1985).

13See Herbert Lockyer, Portraits of the Savior (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, Publishers, 1983).

14Peter J. Kreeft, Heaven: The Heart's Deepest Longing (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1980), pp. 22-27 for example.

15Again, see Matt. 6:19-34; II Cor. 4:6-5:10; Phil. 3:18-21; Col.
3:1-4; Heb. 10:34-35; 11:13-16; I Pet. 1:3-9; 5:7-11; I Jn. 3:1-3.

16Guinness, pp. 33-34.

17Elmer Towns, Say-It-Faith (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1983), pp. 61-73, 112-120. The author makes it plain throughout the book
that the title is not to be taken in the sense of either positive thinking
or of the "health-wealth gospel."

18Ibid., Chapter Eleven.

19Backus, pp. 153-157.

20In fact, such goals are the specific purpose of Backus' book (Ibid.).

21This essay is contained in C. S. Lewis, The World's Last Night and
Other Essays (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1960), pp. 13-30. For
this quotation, see p. 23.

22Ibid., pp. 25-26.

23Ibid., p. 16.

24Ibid., pp. 23-25.

25Ibid., p. 29.

26For an excellent treatment of the relationship between scientific
models and anomalies and how the latter are treated in scientific theory,
see J.P. Moreland, "The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy," Trinity
Journal, NS (1986), pp. 75-86.

27Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 123.

28F.B. Meyer, The Secret of Guidance (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), pp.
25-26.

29Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 124.

30A later chapter in this book addresses these subjects.

31Guinness, pp. 147-149.

32This is Packer's description (see Knowing God, p. 18).

33For a further explanation of such notions and a critique of them, see
Pat means, The Mystical Maze (U.S.: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1976);
Douglas R. Groothius, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1986); Gordon R. Lewis, What Everyone Should Know About
Transcendental Meditation (Glendale: Regal Books, 1975); David K. Clark,
The Pantheism of Alan Watts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978).

34For some of the biblical distinctions, see Thomas McCormick and
Sharon Fish, Meditation: A Practical Guide to a Spiritual Discipline
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983).

35See Gen. 24:63; Ps. 63:6; 77:2; 119:148.

36Ps. 62:1, 5, 6, 11-12; 77:1-3, 12, 119:15; cf. Ps. 27:4; 73:25;
103:1-5; Matt. 6:33.

37Ps. 77:3, 5, 11-12; Phil. 4:8-9.

38Many biblical passages deal with the proper topics for a believer's
meditation. Related terms such as "seek" or "desire" can also denote such
themes for concentration. Believers should meditate on God's law and
precepts (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2; 119:15, 23, 48, 78, 97, 99; cf. Pro. 2:1-5;
6:20-23; Js. 1:23-25), His Person (Ps. 27:4; 63:1-7; 73:25-26, although
picturing God in our imagination is strictly forbidden in Scripture--Ex.
20:4-6), His creation (Ps. 104:24, 31-34; 143:5-6; 145:4-5), His mighty
works or miracles (Ps. 77:12; 119:27), His promises (Ps. 119:148), eternal
life (cf. Ps. 73:24-26; Matt 6:33) or other edifying and praiseworthy
thoughts (Phil. 4:8-9).

39See Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:1-3; 119:1-16, 97-100; Pro. 2:1-5; 6:20- 22.

40McCormick and Fish, pp. 9-14, 35-36, 94-95 for examples. It should be
very carefully noticed that there is a difference between the biblical
imagery for meditation and man-made images (Ex. 20:4-6) which must be
avoided (cf. pp. 67-68).

41Tape: Francis Schaeffer, "The Intellectual (Proof) and Faith," n.d.

42Backus, p. 36.

43With the exception of Phil. 4:6-9, it is not being claimed here that
the psychological or other strategies presented here are synonymous with
biblical truth. But we have strived to present remedies which are
biblical, nonetheless.

Chapter
VI
When God Does Not Answer

Many doubts are seemingly caused when believers do not receive the
answers to their prayers or other needs like they think they should. In
other words, uncertainty sometimes occurs when God does not act in the way
that we think is required. We are giving this issue special attention not
only because of its apparent frequency, but also because there is a
crucially important set of principles which emerges from grappling with
this problem. We will initially view several passages of Scripture which
denote similar questions, followed by an investigation of two prominent
biblical cases where such issues occur in greater detail. It is here that
the key principles which deal with this uncertainty will hopefully emerge,
reaching beyond this initial topic.

Before beginning our study it will perhaps be helpful to set forth a
teaching which I think will be found in Scripture. When this general
question is raised by believers, it appears that it is quite frequently
couched in terms not only of why God does not answer, but such is
contrasted with the biblical accounts where God almost always does answer.
Thus, to frame the question more clearly, it is often said that God used
to act frequently, but now He does not. But Scripture clearly points out
that believers down through the ages have struggled with this exact same
issue. And not only is there comfort in knowing this, but what has been
learned from saints who deal with this question is even more instructive.1

A. Biblical Examples

Numerous times in Scripture a believer thinks that he is in need of
assistance or cries out to God in prayer, only to find that God does not
answer as he desired. In fact, such appears to be a fairly common
experience, even in biblical times. And beyond the issue of prayer, we
have other reports of God's silence.

One common contemporary complaint is that, "My prayers don't get
through; it is as if they bounce off the ceiling" and yet the complaint in
Lam. 3:44 sounds similar. Here it is poetically claimed that God had
covered Himself with a cloud so that Israel's prayers could not get
through. In this case the problem was the nation's sin (3:42). David also
realized that known sin keeps an individual's prayers from being answered
(Ps. 66:18). But in another passage, David speaks of his prayers going
unanswered when he was apparently unaware of the reason and he relates how
this affected him (Ps. 35:13-14, NIV).

A stunning Old Testament passage occurs in Ps. 74:9, where the writer
reports that, at that time, God was neither working miraculous signs or
sending prophets to His people. Then it is added that no one knew how long
this silence would last.

This might be a shock to the seemingly common Christian attitude that
God basically acted throughout the biblical period but is much less active
today. As we will see, there are several "silent" periods in Scripture.
Another example is Isa. 57:11, where the Lord Himself proclaims that He
had "long been silent" towards the Israelites.

One very interesting passage occurs in Dan. 10:10-14, where Daniel
describes a visitation from an angel. He had been mourning and fasting for
three weeks (10:2-3). In answer to his deliberations, an angel was sent to
him. In fact, we are told that God heard Daniel's words and sent the angel
on his first day of supplication. However, the messenger was delayed for
three weeks by "the prince of the Persian Kingdom," apparently denoting
spiritual warfare, since Michael was then sent to assist him. After being
freed, the initial angel came to Daniel to explain the Lord's message to
him (10:10-14).

There are several interesting features in this passage, including the
teaching that answers to prayers can actually be decreed, but delayed by
external conditions. More specifically, most believers probably do not
think of Satan's forces as hindering God's answers to prayer. Thus, a
prayer could be heard and answered with the latter not being manifest for
some time. Another feature is that, while we are not told of Daniel's
response, he could presumably have considered his prayer to be unanswered.
And believers today are at least tempted to consider their prayers as
unanswered if such does not occur in a relatively short time, yet this
may, in fact, not be the case even when we do not witness that answer
immediately.

A major example of God's silence occurs between the testaments. It
appears that we hear seemingly little about the so-called 400 silent years
before the birth of Christ. But if we had been one of the Jews living in
that period of time, we might very well have wondered why neither we nor
those for several generations before us had heard from the Lord. It might
actually have been more unnerving living during that time than in others
previously discussed. Had God given up on His people? While He had been
angry in the past, had it ever lasted this long? And why would there be no
communication at this time which directly followed the centuries of Hebrew
prophets sent by God? But just as Scripture attests that the darkest night
is still followed by a new morning (Ps. 30:5), the Jews who lived during
these "dark ages" did not realize that the coming of the Messiah would be
just around the corner, the event of all events which effectively broke
the silence of those many years.

Such issues are also found in the New Testament. By far the major
instance here is Jesus' own prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. The texts
tell us that, suffering deep distress and anguish to the point of sweating
drops of blood, Jesus requested that His Father allow the coming events to
be bypassed, but prayed that the Father's will, not His, be done.
Certainly the petition requesting the Father's will was accomplished, but
not the earlier request for removal of the immediate future (Mk. 14:33-36;
Lk. 22:39-44; cf. Matt. 26:36-43). Here we have one of the cases where
Jesus was tempted like we are, including the suffering of distraught
emotions, yet without sinning (Heb. 4:15).

Paul also found that God does not always act in accordance with our
will when he prayed three times that God would remove his apparent
physical problem, all without success. Yet Paul learned what Jesus already
knew, that the Father's will is preferable (II Cor. 12:7-10).

These biblical cases, then, point out how God does not always answer
prayer the way that believers think He should. In fact, sometimes specific
periods of silence ensue. It is simply a fact that believers struggled
with such issues throughout Scripture and not just today. Many biblical
saints presumably even lived their entire lives during the silent periods
when God was not as active. But beyond the helpful knowledge that this was
so, we need to ask what was learned from these dilemmas? Are there any
helpful truths here which can also assist us today?

B. The Case of Job

In an earlier chapter we looked briefly at the cases of two Old
Testament believers, Job and Abraham. Here we want to dwell on each one in
more detail, not only because the biblical accounts record that they
wrestled with the problem of God's silence over an extended period of
time, but especially because of the extraordinary truths which they
learned through it.

To summarize very briefly, Job was tested by Satan and faced with
various calamities such as the loss of his domestic animals, the deaths of
his servants and children, as well as personal sickness (Job 1:6-2:7).
Even though his wife suggested that he respond simply by cursing God and
dying (2:9), Job refused to sin by charging God with fault in any of these
problems (1:20-22; 2:10).

Most of the book is taken up by Job's dialogue with his three friends,
Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. And it is here that Job's complaint against
God begins to surface. Job blames God for his troubles and specifically
for injustice to him. And some of these charges are rather strongly
stated.2 He also challenges God to confront him (Job 13:3, 21-22). All the
while, the silence of God is a main issue (19:7). Yet Job never loses
hope, and even voices his trust in God (13:15; 19:25-27; 27:3-4).

Then a fourth person, Elihu, begins to dialogue with Job (Chapter 32).
He speaks more truth than the other three friends and, in a sense,
frequently speaks for God. Now the end of the story is well known. Job
confronts the Lord Himself and, after repentance, is blessed by God more
than he ever had been in the past. Yet, what transpires in this
confrontation with God and what lessons Job learns are not as frequently
recognized.

Initially, Elihu gets angry at Job for blaming his problems on God (Job
32:1-2). In the next six chapters he and Job converse (see list below),
but the climax of the book occurs when God Himself challenges Job; in a
sense it is almost like a final exam. God tells Job that He will ask the
questions and Job can provide the answers, since he professes to know so
much (38:1-3). The Lord's queries then concern such issues as whether Job
could create the world (38:4-11), move the stars (38:31-33), or control
the animal kingdom (Chapter 39). At this point, Job was confronted with
the glory and awesomeness of God.

In fact, God also challenged Job to explain the problem of evil (Job
38:12-15; 40:8-14), insisting that, if he could, then the God of the
universe would admit that Job could save himself (40:15)! By this time,
Job had already confessed that he had nothing left to say (40:3-5). So
after having confronted the Lord, Job concluded that he was now certain
that the Lord was omnipotent (42:1-2). As a matter of fact, this
conclusion had already been proclaimed by both Elihu and the Lord himself
before Job came to the recognition of it himself.3

From his conversations with Elihu and later with the Lord, Job heard
(and apparently learned) a number of lessons.4 (1) He was not to assert
his own righteousness against the Lord, especially in a rebellious and
scornful way (Job 32:2, 5-7; 40:4, 8; 42:5, 6). (2) One ought not blame
God for His silence (33:14; 34:29; 35:12-16). (3) It does profit a man to
follow God (34:9; 42:5ff.). (4) God is not to be condemned or blamed for
evil (34:10, 12, 17; 38:12-15; 40:8-14). (5) God is personal (34:21-22;
42:12). (6) Man ought not trust in his own knowledge (34:35; 37:5, 24;
38:2, 4, 18; 39:2; 42:3). (7) Instead, man ought to trust in God (35:14;
cf. 42:1-6). (8) God must punish if man goes too far (36:18), but He also
rewards and blesses (36:16; 42:12). (9) God should be praised (36:24ff.;
37:14; 38:4ff.). (10) The works of God are incomprehensible (37:5, 23-24;
38:2-39).

The conclusion to Job's dilemma is a very instructive one. At the
beginning of this book his major question concerned why he suffered. But,
strangely, he never received an answer to that question. Indeed, Philip
Yancey claims that for God to have explained the need for evil to Job
would be like attempting to teach Einstein to a clam!5 Yet Job was
satisfied because he realized that God could do anything, including take
care of evil. So Job made the decision that, based on what he did know
about God, he could trust Him in those things which he did not know. And
he made this decision while he was still tormented, before God blessed
him.

This is a tremendous principle for believers today to learn, too. When
God's silence or the presence of pain and evil can be explained, so much
the better.6 But even when such cannot be figured out, we ought to trust
God, for we have enough of a basis to do so. After all, if man is finite,
why do we frequently act as if we must be able to explain everything in
the universe? At least this major principle should be garnered from the
Book of Job. After all, if even Jesus resigned Himself to the will of His
Father, why shouldn't Christians learn to do the same? But, as we have
seen, there are many other lessons that are also applicable to the issue
of God's silence.

C. The Case of Abraham

Like Job, Abraham wrestled with the issue of God's silence and also
learned some great truths which are applicable to doubts on the same
subject today. To set the specific scene just briefly, God had spoken to
Abraham (when his name was still Abram) and called him to take his family
from his homeland of Ur, east of Israel, to Canaan. Abraham was promised
that a great nation would come from him there and that they would, in
turn, be the source of blessing for all the peoples of the earth (Gen.
12:1-3).

So Abraham took his family and, after several incidents, settled in the
land of Canaan, where he and his wife Sarah later died and were buried.
God greatly blessed his family and he became the father of the Israelites.

Throughout his long life, Abraham was characterized as a man of faith.
The writer of Hebrews notes several of his accomplishments which were
gained by trusting God. Initially he responded in faith and proceeded to
Canaan, even though he did not know where he was going (Heb. 11:8-10). He
also trusted God's promise that he and Sarah would have a child, even
though they were elderly and Sarah had been barren. But the faith that God
was trustworthy allowed him to be the father of a great nation (11:11-12).
And then when God asked Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice,
Abraham was willing because he even believed that God, having made him a
promise, could raise his son from the dead if need be (11:17-19). So
Abraham lived his life by faith and God honored that and blessed him.

But some might wonder how Abraham could ever have had a question about
God's leading. After all, didn't Abraham speak directly to God basically
whenever he wanted to do so? But yet, we find after an examination of the
texts that Abraham may also have had a question concerning God's silence,
in spite of our ideas to the contrary. For example, Gen. 16 ends when
Abraham is 86 years old. As far as we are told, the next time God spoke to
him was 13 years later when he was 99 years old (Gen. 17:1). Now it is
hard to be dogmatic here, but if there were any major communications it is
likely that we would at least have been told about these, based on the
other major episodes of his life that are related to the reader. But it is
also true that we cannot be sure. God may have spoken to him during this
interval. But at the very least, neither do we have grounds for asserting
that God communicated with Abraham throughout his life on a weekly or even
a yearly basis. It does appear that there may have been gaps, and perhaps
even sizeable ones.

Regardless, Abraham was a man of faith. But neither did God expect him
to believe in a vacuum. Abraham was given warrant for his belief, as well.
After all, God did speak to him and such communication must have been very
convincing. And then there was the rather mysterious time when Abraham
asked God how he might know that Canaan would be given to him as his
possession (Gen. 15:8). The Lord responded by telling him that he could
know this truth for certain and then proceeded to utilize a supernatural
manifestation in order to make a covenant with Abraham (15:13-21). So
faith does not exclude good grounds for belief. Yet Abraham exercised more
faith than normal and as the writer of Hebrews makes the point, the great
events in his life would not have been possible without this exercise of
faith.

But here is the key in the case of Abraham: he not only exercised
faith, but that faith grew as he trusted God more and more. Paul also
utilizes Abraham as his example at this very juncture. When he could have
just given up and ignored God's call, Abraham chose to believe instead and
moved his family. And then when a child was promised, he still did not
falter in his faith even though all the medical data opposed it. In both
cases Abraham did not give up or lapse into unbelief; but his faith was
actually strengthened (Rom. 4:18-25).

Imagine a faith that actually grows when the pressure is the greatest!
Yet that was Abraham's experience. And like Job, the chief reason is that
he concluded that God was trustworthy; what he already knew about Him was
enough to trust Him in unknown areas (Rom. 4:21).

None of this is to say, however, that Abraham did not experience
hardships, even regarding his faith. Just as Job resorted to questioning
God, Abraham also had his troublesome moments. We have already mentioned
His need for assurance, resulting in a supernatural event (Gen. 15:8-21).
There were also the times when Abraham concealed the identity of Sarah to
protect his own life (12:10-20; 20:1-18), or when Abraham and Sarah
resorted to allowing the maid, Hagar, to bear a son (Ishmael) for Abraham,
since Sarah still had not gotten pregnant (16:1-16), all in spite of God's
promises.

But, as a whole, Abraham regularly acted in faith. And his faith did
not give way to unbelief. He was strengthened even during trying times
because He trusted God (Rom. 4:18-25). And as we pointed out in Chapter V
on Volitional Doubt, believers today can also let their faith grow
precisely during the times when it is under attack.

D. Conclusion

There are many reasons why prayer may not be answered the way believers
expect. But as pointed out above, this chapter is not primarily concerned
with why prayers are not answered but how believers respond when they
think that they have not been.7 To this end we have endeavored to point
out, initially, that it was common for believers in Scripture to both
wonder why their prayers were not answered and to question God's silence,
which sometimes lasted for long periods of time. Such a study should help
us to see that we do not have as dichotomy between biblical times when God
always answered prayer and today, when He often does not. Such a thesis
simply is not supported by the facts. God answers many prayers according
to the request, while believers have concluded that others have not been
responded to (according to their own evaluations).

Using the experiences of Job and Abraham, we found that some believers
have grown even during tough times. And like both of them, believers today
can also resolve to trust the Lord even further, right during times of
doubt and dismay. One principle here is that, since we know enough about
God in other crucial areas, we can trust Him even in those further
instances where we cannot figure things out completely. After all, I may
not know why I am presently suffering, but this is still a world where God
has raised Jesus from the dead and believers still have eternal life.

Here we need to practice exerting our faith during times of doubt,
perhaps by directly affirming our belief to God during prayer or
meditation. Another helpful practice is to literally list our answers to
prayer as they come about, thereby providing a ready list for times when
we experience questions as to how much God answers our prayers.
Incidentally, such questions are more usually emotional in nature (see
Chapter IV) and so just such a list is helpful in confronting our own
untruths which we tell ourselves. And then, as Job and Abraham
experienced, we can also witness the growth of our faith and the
corresponding lessening of the grip of doubt.

Endnotes--Chapter VI

1It should be carefully noted that this chapter is not primarily
concerned with the biblical conditions for answered prayer but rather with
the doubt which proceeds from one's perception that prayer has not been
answered, even if all conditions are thought to have been met. In other
words, we are not really dealing with the reasons God does not appear to
answer prayer as much as how an individual reacts when such is the case
and what lessons can be learned through this experience. (But see endnote
7 below as well).

2For examples, see Job 7:11; 10:3-4, 13-14, 20-22; 12:6; 14:19; 16:9;
27:2.

3For some instances, see the various related claims in Job 33:12;
36:26; 37:5, 23; 40:2; cf. 33:17.

4Most of these following principles are repeated in the words of both
Elihu and God.

5Philip Yancey, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," Christianity
Today, volume 27, number 12, August 5, 1983, p. 23.

6We are not asserting that the cause of specific sorts of pain and evil
will never be known, for Scripture also provides a number of such reasons,
as well. Rather, we are addressing issues for which the cause cannot
always be ascertained.

7However, we can still briefly list some of the biblical conditions for
answered prayer. Most of such factors are personal in nature, such as the
need to confess one's sin (Ps. 66:18; I Jn. 1:9), exercise faith (Mk.
11:24; Js. 1:5-8), be obedient (Jn. 15:7; I Jn. 3:22), pray according to
God's will (I Jn. 5:14-15) and in Jesus' name (Jn. 14:13-14; 15:16;
16:23). But we are also told that individual prayers are sometimes not
answered when the nation itself has been in a state of sin (Lam. 3:42-44;
cf. Isa. 57:11).

Chapter
VII
Jesus As A Living Person

The longer I work with the issue of doubt, the more I am convinced that
a major key in the process is understanding, on a daily, practical basis,
that Jesus is still intensely personal. In dealing with volitional doubt,
in particular, we have already seen the importance of applying the New
Testament teachings of the personhood of Jesus to one's life in order to
both increase one's faith and to provide greater impetus to love and be
committed to Him. It is definitely true that He lived, died and rose from
the dead in first century Palestine. But it is also true that He is just
as alive and just as personal to each believer today, but we frequently do
not quite appropriate that personal element in our Christian lives.
Herbert Lockyer states the issue this way:

Have you met Jesus? . . . We try to feel His nearness.
But He is not real to us. The tragedy is that Christ is not, to us, the
living, bright Reality that He ought to be.1

But not only did Jesus act in a deeply personal way while He walked on
this earth but He has also provided the means for a truly personal
relation to believers today. Appropriating the truth of that closeness can
solve several problems regularly faced by the doubter.

A. Jesus in the Gospels

It appears that the subject of the various kindnesses which Jesus
showed to different individuals and groups is a topic which is seldom
mentioned in much detail. Yet this is an aspect2 of His personality which
can help provide a realization of His love for others. And I think that
such a study serves to assist us in appreciating the personal element in
His ministry. This, in turn, can also help us to formulate a foundation
concerning how Jesus still has a personal relationship with believers
today, as well.

Jesus' compassion is shown not only by His healings, but also by His
attitude displayed in these acts. When a leprous man approached Jesus for
healing, we are told that He was "filled with compassion" for him and
responded that He was, indeed, willing to heal the individual (Mk. 1:41;
cf. Matt. 8:2-3; Lk. 5:12-13). Just prior to the feeding of the five
thousand it is explained that Jesus "had compassion on them and healed
their sick" (Matt. 14:14; Mk. 6:34). Then, before the feeding of the four
thousand, we are again told that Jesus felt compassion for the people
(Matt. 15:32; Mk. 8:2). In the case of the two blind men, "Jesus had
compassion on them and touched their eyes" (Matt. 20:34). And when ten men
with leprosy approached, requesting that Jesus have mercy on them, He did,
healing all of them (Lk. 17:13).

In each of these examples, the narratives are very brief. But one
unmistakably gets the idea that Jesus felt deep compassion for those who
were sick, hungry or without leadership. His method was not simply to heal
persons by walking among them in a detached manner. He shared their
burdens and experienced their pain. Then He exercised His powers, thereby
revealing His mercy.

Jesus showed Himself to be humble and gentle on several occasions. One
of the best known of these occurred when little children were brought to
Jesus so He would place His hands on them and pray for them. (Luke even
includes babies in the group.) After rebuking the disciples for attempting
to stop this procedure, we are told that Jesus "took the children in his
arms, put his hands on them and blessed them" (Mk. 10:16; cf. Matt.
19:13-15; Lk. 18:15-17). In another instance Jesus also took a little
child up in His arms in order to make a point (Mk. 9:36-37).

In more than one situation Jesus taught His disciples to be servants.
In fact, the greatest one was to serve.3 And then by example, Jesus washed
His disciples' feet; the Son of God humbled Himself to do this lowly job
of service (John 13:1-17).

Additionally, in inviting individuals to come to Him, Jesus identified
Himself with the words, "I am gentle and humble in heart" (Matt. 11:29).
And Matthew also cites Zech. 9:9 as a prophecy which mentions the
gentleness of the Messiah (Matt. 21:5).

Further, in a number of rather striking statements, Jesus spoke of His
followers as His friends and was very specific about His love for them.
Most frequently, it is the disciples who are called the friends of Jesus
(Lk. 12:4; Jn. 21:5). On one occasion He spoke of the growth in their
relationship: "I no longer call you servants . . . . Instead, I have
called you friends . . . . " (Jn. 15:14-15). Jesus also called Lazarus His
friend (Jn. 11:11).

We are additionally told, again primarily in the Gospel of John, that
Jesus loved His disciples (Jn. 13:1, 34-35) and one disciple, in
particular (Jn. 13:23). The depth of this relationship is seen in Jesus'
statement, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you" (Jn. 15:9).
This is even more apparent when Jesus points out that dying for one's
friends constitutes the greatest love (Jn. 15:12-13).

The last two statements strikingly reveal that, by the term "love,"
Jesus does not refer to some weak or indecisive emotion. Rather, He
compares His love for His disciples with nothing less than the Father's
perfect love for Him. Then, after encouraging His disciples to love one
another, He points out that the greatest love is indicated by one's dying
for one's friends. These teachings indicate Jesus' true, sacrificial love.
And this love is by no means limited to the disciples alone, since we are
also told that Jesus loved Lazarus, Mary and Martha (Jn. 11:3, 5, 36), as
well as the wealthy young man who questioned Him concerning eternal life
(Mk. 10:21).

At first reflection, one might be tempted to think that the force of
these last statements might be mitigated due to Jesus' commands to love
one's enemies, as well. And Jesus certainly does teach not only that one's
enemies should be loved, but that we should also bless them, pray for them
and lend willingly to them (Lk. 6:27-36; Matt. 5:43-48). But this should
only cause us to increase our appreciation for Jesus, for the admonition
concerning this treatment of one's enemies is no mere empty rule but a
genuine love on His part. Such is indicated both by Jesus' cry to His
Father that His executors be forgiven, which He made right during the time
that He experienced the most intense pain of crucifixion (Lk. 23:34) and
by His earlier remarks concerning His willingness to die because of His
love for persons (Jn. 15:13).

Jesus' offer of comfort was often given to His followers. Sometimes
such was manifest in brief admonitions not to fear, as when He stilled a
storm (Mk. 6:50) or when He calmed a frightened Peter, James and John
during His transfiguration (Matt. 17:17). On other occasions, however,
detailed offers were made as to how people might experience true rest.
Some of the images which were used by Jesus specifically correlated with
Old Testament promises of God's blessings for His people.

For example, in Matt. 11:28-30 Jesus invites all who are weary and
burdened to find rest by exchanging their problems for discipleship.
Besides the beautifully-worded offer to lay down one's burdens, this
proposal is reminiscent of the promise that if we cast our cares on God,
He will sustain and keep us from faltering (Ps. 55:22). A similar teaching
in Ps. 68:19 relates that God daily bears the burdens of His people. So
Jesus not only made a wonderful offer Himself, but He tapped resources
that a person who was familiar with God's Old Testament promises would
recognize.

In another instance, Jesus announces His love for those in Jerusalem,
saying that He longed to gather the Jews to Him like a mother hen gathers
her chicks under her wings, so as to provide shelter and protection (Matt.
23:37-39; Lk. 13:34-35). In a similar vein, Jesus also wept over Jerusalem
on another occasion, desiring its peace (Lk. 19:42). One of the most
common images in the Old Testament was that of God providing a refuge for
His people as their Shield and Protector. Perhaps the best-known of these
is Ps. 91, but literally dozens of passages in the Psalms alone repeat
this message,4 as do other texts.5 In addition to Ps. 91, other key
portions include Ps. 36:7-9 and 46:1-7, where we are told that believers
find refuge in God, where all their needs are met and supplied in
overabundance. The key here besides the theme of protection is that of
total rest and fellowship with the God of the universe. And again, Jesus
tapped into this gorgeous imagery in His offer of peace to His people.

Another picturesque image is provided when Jesus compares Himself to a
good shepherd who constantly cares for believers, who are His sheep. John
10:1-18 graphically portrays this, which is also a common theme for those
familiar with the Old Testament. Jesus calls His sheep by name, leads them
out of the fold and directs them to peaceful pasture land (see especially
Jn. 10:3-4,9). Like Ps. 91, there is a major counterpart here from the
Book of Psalms as well. In Ps. 23 we find that God is our Shepherd and
that His sheep lack nothing. He leads them out to beautiful green pastures
and beside quiet waters where they rest comfortably. Even when facing
death, the Lord's sheep have no need to fear because He is with them even
then, comforting them. The sheep's desire (as in the earlier theme of
refuge) is to spend eternity with the Shepherd. Other passages express
very similar teachings.6 Two other especially interesting texts refer to
God gently carrying His sheep "close to His heart," paying particular
attention to the young ones (Isa. 40:11) and carrying them that way
forever (Ps. 28:9). These are quite reminiscent of Jesus as the good
Shepherd of Jn. 10, and of Jesus' parable of the shepherd who searches far
and wide for his lost animal, placing it on his shoulders and calling his
friends to rejoice when it is found. Jesus' own interpretation refers to
the rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents (Lk. 15:3-7).

In particular, I think that these last two images are the greatest
biblical pictures of Jesus' compassion, gentleness and love. The mother
hen who gathers her chickens and protects them under her wings and the
shepherd leading his sheep to peaceful pastures are simply graphic
depictions of Jesus' treatment of believers.

With regard to the first image of the hen, Lockyer notes four keys in
Jesus' attitude. First, He is a persistent lover, noted by the phrase "how
often" He wanted to so protect the Jews. Second, He is a tender lover,
illustrated by the treatment of the mother hen for her chickens. Third,
Jesus was an unwanted lover, since the Jews "would not" receive Him.
Lastly, He is a Judgmental Lover because He was forced to turn them back
over to themselves, desolate.7

And again this is reminiscent of Ps. 91 with its stress on particularly
God being the believer's Shelter, Refuge and Fortress as they rest under
His wings in the shadows, away from all that is evil (vs. 1-13). The
promise is made, further, that all who so rest will also find deliverance
from trouble, answers to prayer, long life and salvation (vs. 14-16).

The imagery of the shepherd caring for his sheep is equally
instructive. What could be more restful that being guided by the Son of
God, the Creator of the Universe, as He takes His followers to safe
pastures where they rest by quiet waters? In fact, Rev. 7:15-17 adopts
this very idea to describe the eternal rest offered to those who triumph
and keep their faith pure through great tribulation.

And once again, with both images the supreme ideas are those of
protection, rest and fellowship. Such eternal communion with the God of
the universe should be a cause of great joy for the believer. By these and
other teachings, Jesus communicated His compassion, gentleness,
friendship, love and desire for restful fellowship with believers. To
spend eternity with Jesus is a truly wonderful reward made possible solely
through God's love and grace. And we have seen a foretaste of such in the
earthly ministry of Jesus.

B. Jesus is Personally Alive Today

Perhaps many believers today would say that the chief issues involved
in conceiving of Jesus as intensely personal today are that He walked on
the earth 2000 years ago and that believers do not actually see Him as
others once did. Interestingly, even believers shortly after Jesus' era
apparently also dealt with this dilemma, although the time frame was more
abbreviated (I Pet. 1:18). But a biblical presentation of the data, I
think, bridges the gap between the past and the present. Utilizing Jesus'
earthly ministry as our point of departure, we will attempt to show that
Jesus made provision for believers to compensate for exactly this concern
on their part.

Before proceeding to Jesus' answer to this issue, a few contemporary
illustrations will perhaps show that we regularly recognize that personal
relationships can exist even when persons have never met. For instance, I
know several individuals whom I have never personally met except through
regular telephone conversations. Yet I consider each to be a personal
friend. Such has even led to close friendships.

Or again, the popular practice of writing letters to pen-pals has
doubtless led to countless close and personal friendships among persons
who have never met. And a last type of in absentia friendship most
frequently seems to occur when a parent knows they are dying, so they
produce a number of writings or tape recordings for future use by children
who are not old enough to understand and who will not remember their
parent. In some cases, these communications are prepared for (as yet)
unborn children.

Now it must be granted that these cases do not correspond in several
respects to the large physical separation between Jesus and Twentieth
Century believers. But the chief point to be illustrated here is that, in
the last two types of cases, in particular, we perceive situations where
personal relationships exist and develop without any actual face to fact
contact. Yet presumably few would claim that these cannot constitute truly
personal friendships. For our purposes, it will be good to keep this in
mind as we present thirteen steps by which Jesus Himself laid the
groundwork for personal interaction with individuals, both in the first
century and onwards until today.

First, the Incarnation is explicitly the supreme act which reveals
Jesus' humanity. What could be a greater act of relating to human persons,
especially when it was initiated by God Himself? Thus, Jesus chose to
become a man; the Son of God, Himself a divine Person, chose to be further
related to human persons by becoming one of them. It is doubtful that a
more personal act could be conceived than an infinite God becoming a man.

Second, we have already seen in the first section of this chapter how
Jesus did not stay aloof but got involved with people's needs. Besides
teaching His disciples, He also revealed His deep love and compassion for
the sick, poor, hungry and outcasts. He dealt with both crowds and
individuals. He blessed babies and children. He offered Jews protection
and Christians leadership, calm, rest and fellowship. He even prayed for
His enemies during His most intense pain. And much of this was done when
Jesus was tired and weary, at much expense to His own physical needs. Then
He taught that the same expression of self-sacrificial love was the chief
fruit of a believer (Jn. 15:9-17). Such personal interaction with the
needs of others is unparalleled among major religious teachers.

Third, Jesus repeatedly taught that sinners can have a personal
relationship with Him by a faith-commitment. Thus, the same Jesus Christ
who became man and who carried on the ministry such as we have outlined in
this chapter actually invited individuals to experience a personal
relationship with Him.

Fourth, Jesus prayed not only for the future welfare of His own
disciples, but He even prayed specifically for those who would later
become believers after them (Jn. 17:20). Thus, His prayer in this chapter
was to eventually provide for believers today, up until His return (as do
many of the exhortations in the New Testament epistles).

Fifth, Jesus died to show His love for us. In fact, it just may be that
the death of Jesus is the single most convincing sign of His compassion
for believers. And lest we think otherwise, His death was just as
efficacious for us today as for anyone in the first century. What depth of
love is shown when the infinite God of the universe cares for us enough to
send His unique Son to die, especially with the explicit knowledge of the
horribly tortuous death of crucifixion! And to think that the Son did it
all without being forced; it was a totally voluntary act.

How many of us would willingly be tortured and die so that, say, a
criminal could live? And yet this is precisely what Jesus did for us in
His love while we were still offensive to Him in our sin (Rom. 5:8).

Then the pain that Jesus suffered is another angle from which to view
the Cross. It assists us in understanding that God's own Son ultimately
knows what it is like to suffer far more than virtually any humans ever
do. We might not understand why we suffer sometimes, but He does.

Lastly, the Cross is also an intensely personal event. It was not only
a death for the whole world but, at the exact same time, a death for each
individual. Jesus, then, not only came to die for the world; He really
came to die for me. New Testament offers of salvation to individuals
specifically portray this aspect.

As a whole, then, the Cross reveals an intimate relationship between
Jesus and believers. It shows His love, the pain He suffered, and the
personal quality involved in His death. And, as we have said, it is as
applicable to Twentieth Century believers as it was in the First Century.

Sixth, Jesus rose from the dead to prove His love for Christians. Thus,
He did not simply claim that His death was special, including the factors
just mentioned, but His resurrection sealed those statements, revealing
that they were true. Additionally, the fact that the believer's eternal
life is guaranteed by this same resurrection makes this event more
important in personal terms, for it provides an example of the believer's
own resurrected body.8

But at this point Jesus left His earthly ministry and took His place in
heaven. This is an important juncture because it indicates a new order in
God's personal relationship to believers, who also struggled even in the
First Century with the issue of Jesus' being physically absent from them
(Jn. 16:5-7, 12; cf. I Pet. 1:8). So as we proceed through the remainder
of the thirteen points, we will not only be concerned with how Jesus
continues to relate to believers today, but also how the original question
was answered for the disciples.

The seventh step in Jesus' provision for Christians, and the specific
one which He used to comfort the twelve disciples after telling them that
He would be leaving them, is that the Holy Spirit would be sent to them
(Jn. 14:12-19, 25-27). He would minister to them as Jesus had done
previously, also presenting additional benefits (see Jn. 14:26; 16:12-15).

At this point what must not be concluded is that the ministry of the
Holy Spirit would be quite inconsequential in the sense of bringing the
disciples direction and comfort or that this new ministry would be unreal
to them because He could not be seen. All one should have to do, for
example, is to study the Book of Acts to perceive how real the Holy
Spirit's ministry was to the apostles. He guided, empowered, and
enlightened them on many an occasion and there is no hint that there was
any dissatisfaction on the part of these believers.

As for Christians today, it sometimes does appear that the Holy Spirit
is too often viewed in just the negative way mentioned above: His ministry
is thought of as being too inconsequential and too unreal. I think many
believers too frequently think (privately, of course) that the work of the
Spirit is an unfair "trade" for the earthly, visible ministry of Jesus.

And yet, we must come to grips with the fact that for Jesus, the work
of the Holy Spirit was very substantial, both as a fit reminder of Jesus'
own ministry, as well as providing for genuinely new dimensions (Jn.
14:12; 16:13 for examples). Additionally, the New Testament reports that
the Holy Spirit provides a specific testimony to the believer in order to
certify His own, individual participation in salvation.9 This topic is
substantial enough to be the subject of the next chapter, so we will not
pursue it here, except to say that this witness is real and deeper than
human emotions, reason or sense experience, although it often affects
these three. But the point here is that the Holy Spirit's overall work is
not only quite substantial, but that it is the first link in the chain
which provides the believer today with a personal witness to the living
Jesus, as indicated by the Lord Himself (Jn. 16:14).

Eighth, and in an apparently separate sense, Jesus also promised to be
with His followers through the end of this age -- or until He returns
(Matt. 28:20; cf. Heb. 13:5-6). While this is possibly a reference to the
ministry of the Holy Spirit, it appears in Matthew to also refer
separately to Jesus' presence with believers (cf. also Matt. 18:20). At
any rate, it is clear that Jesus is, in some sense, promising His presence
to Christians from the First Century to the present.

Ninth, Jesus also provided a love letter even for Twentieth Century
believers--the New Testament. He promised the apostles that they would be
His spokesmen and His witnesses (Matt. 10:40; Lk. 24:48; Acts 1:8).
Additionally, the Holy Spirit would inspire them (see John 14:26;
16:12-15). The result of Jesus' promises was the writing of the New
Testament, which remains, even for believers today, Jesus' love letter to
us. It is an especially affective bridge between the First Century and
ourselves, although we may sometimes forget that it is a document provided
for us by Jesus Himself.

Further, the tenth connection between the living Jesus and believers
today is that He taught us to pray in His name so that God will answer
(Jn. 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24). In this sense, He is presently involved
in meeting our needs and responding to our requests. When believers pray
in Jesus' name and the prayer is answered,10 Jesus has had a part in it, a
further indication of His current involvement with our lives.

The eleventh indication which believers have today that Jesus is still
personally involved with them is that He still serves as Mediator and High
Priest. The Book of Hebrews repeatedly teaches that this is a continuing,
unending priesthood (Heb. 7:23-8:6; 9:24-28), and as such also applies
just as much to believers today as it did in the First Century. So Jesus
did not "pass off the scene" so to speak, but has a continuing ministry
with believers even at present. And the fact that He is our Mediator (I
Tim. 2:5-6) likewise remains the case with no difference between the First
and Twentieth Centuries.

The twelfth truth is that Jesus is not only the Creator of the universe
and everything in it (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16), but He is also the Sustainer of
the universe, as well (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). In fact, Scripture teaches a
"radical" dependency of creation on God, such that two biblical writers
can poetically say that if God would withdraw His breath, everything would
die (Job 34:14-15; Ps. 104:29).

Now at first thought some might contend that this does not sound too
personal, but such would be to miss the point that, in order to sustain
all life at every moment, God is intricately involved with each one of us.
And if one thinks that God must also sustain the far reaches of the
universe it should be said that such is, in fact, actually needed in order
for life to exist on earth. Thus, the God Who controls the universe is
also intimately involved with human life.11

Thirteenth, the very same Jesus who was so personally involved in the
lives of so many individuals while He was on the earth, who prayed for
believers, died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose again for
us, who sent the Holy Spirit, provided the New Testament and serves as our
High Priest and Mediator, as well as being the Sustainer of the universe,
has also invited believers to spend eternity with Him! Such an offer is
almost incomprehensible. Unlike individuals who are willing to share some
(but not the best) things with others, Jesus wants to include Christians
in His eternal plans. And to spend eternity with Jesus Christ represents
the highest of Christian hopes; to praise Him and live with Him forever is
beyond any specifically human dreams. Yet, Jesus freely offered this
future to those who entrust their lives to Him.

A personal existence in heaven with the personal God of the universe is
a fit conclusion to our study of how Jesus could have lived 2000 years ago
and still be personally involved with believers today. After all, the
point here was to show that Jesus is personally concerned with
contemporary Christians and the opportunity to finally meet Him and spend
eternity with Him clearly reveals the biblical thesis at its best.

C. Conclusion

Near the beginning of this chapter we raised the issue of how Jesus
could be separated from Twentieth Century believers by almost 2000 years
and still remain personal, especially when no one today has ever seen Him.
It was suggested by analogy that there might be at least some similarities
in such human experiences as close friendships which evolve through
telephone conversations, letter writing or tapes, each in the absence of
face to face meetings. In the case of Jesus, knowing He would leave the
world, He not only left a lifetime example of personal involvement but He
also sent the Holy Spirit and prepared His disciples for the writing of
the New Testament.12 Thus, believers not only were given the Holy Spirit,
but one result was the recording of the New Testament "love letters" for
Christians down through the ages. In this sense, Jesus made sure that He
left His followers with both the Holy Spirit and a written product, which
may be at least reminiscent of those who leave messages of various sorts
for their children because of their impending deaths.

At any rate, it is simply true that believers today do not operate by
having seen Jesus in physical terms (I Pet. 1:8; cf. II Cor. 5:7). And yet
it appears that Jesus has left an unbroken chain from the time of His
earthly life to the present. After a tremendous personal example during
His ministry, His sacrificial death and resurrection, He sent the Holy
Spirit (Jesus' own chosen "Successor") as well as promising His presence
to believers and His being High Priest, Mediator and Sustainer, all of
which reveal this ongoing relationship. And the chance to actually meet
Him and to spend eternity with Him is an unprecedented personal offer.

Therefore, Christians should realize that there is not a 2000 year gap,
except in the sense that Jesus has not continued His earthly ministry
during that time. But such is not synonymous with Jesus' absence from the
lives of believers. And presently we do experience the ministry of the
Holy Spirit in our lives (see next chapter), at least part of Whose
ministry is to testify concerning Jesus (Jn. 16:14).

This conclusion is crucially important for those who suffer doubts. As
asserted in Chapter V on Volitional Doubt, knowledge about one's ongoing
relationship with Jesus Christ and developing it are very important in
building up one's faith. Thus, to realize that one is really involved with
a living Person is a key in responding to assaults on one's faith: doubts
assail a personal relationship, not simply a body of beliefs. To
illustrate, I will presumably respond differently to attacks on my wife's
character because of a close personal relationship with her, as opposed to
simply trying to defend someone's honor.

But even far beyond this, to know that Jesus is still personally
related to me is hopefully to begin to build up our relationship in a
positive manner. Earlier it was suggested that one of the best ways to
cause faith to grow is, paradoxically, to practice during the doubt
itself. And it might be remembered that it is healthier to move ahead and
grow than it is to always be engaged in fighting battles. (This is where
meditation is also helpful to work on this positive growth.) At any rate,
much Christian doubt as a whole can be corrected by the knowledge that
Jesus presently is with us, knows our needs and loves us.13

Endnotes -- Chapter VII

1Herbert Lockyer, Portraits of the Savior (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
Publishers, 1983), p. VII.

2Since this is only an aspect of His personality, the picture presented
here needs to be balanced by Jesus' total ministry, including, for
example, His warnings of judgment for those who did not heed His words.

3See Lk. 22:24-27 (cf. Matt. 20:26-28; Mk. 10:43-45); Matt. 23:11-12.

4For a small sampling, see Ps. 3:3; 5:11; 9:9; 11:1; 16:1; 17:8; 18:2,
30; 25:20; 27:1; 28:7; 31:1-4, 19, 20; 32:7, for examples.

5For a few of these, see Isa. 17:10; 25:4-5; 31:5; 57:13; Jer. 16:19;
17:17.

6In particular, see Ps. 37:3; 74:1; 79:13; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3; Isa.
53:6.

7Lockyer, pp. 113-117. Interestingly, Ps. 7:10-11 also notes that God
is both a Shield and a righteous Judge.

8See Jn. 14:3, 19; II Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:21; I Jn. 3:2.

9See Jn. 14:17, 20; Rom. 8:15-17; Gal. 4:6-7; I Jn. 3:23; 4:13.

10For a brief listing of some other biblical conditions of answered
prayer, see Chapter VI, endnote 7.

11For an excellent discussion of points such as these, see Robert
Gange, Origins and Destiny: A Scientist Examines God's Handiwork (Waco:
Word Books, 1986).

12See John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1984), especially Chapter 5 for some relevant data here.

13Chapter V explains such strategies in detail.

Chapter
VIII
The Testimony of the Holy Spirit

During my own periods of doubt and long before I had ever studied the
work of the Holy Spirit, I had quite frequently experienced what I could
best describe alternately either as unusually potent restraint or
conviction. Even when my uncertainty was at its worst (in fact, especially
during those times) I had the distinct impression that I could not "let
go" of my Christian faith. In other words, even during the moments of
severe doubt, when I felt as if my soul had been laid bare by the torrents
of intellectual criticism or when I had considered believing something
different, I would often experience the realization both that Christianity
(especially in its essence) was true and that I could really (and finally)
never believe otherwise.1 At the time I dismissed it as a rather strange
conviction (because it seemed more certain than other regular
impressions), and I just passed it off as being psychological in nature.
But a residue of the conviction remained so that I frequently found myself
wondering as to its nature. Thus, it was strong enough (and different
enough, as well) that I continued to come back to it to query concerning
its essence.

Upon reflection, I found that it was different than psychological
states, which not only varied but which were not this strong. This inward
conviction not only remained when the times were the roughest, but even
when I experienced emotional doubt and asked "what if" I ever gave up
Christianity? At those moments I was still convicted that the essence of
Christianity was true and that my only option was to continue to believe.
And in my quieter moments, the same conviction was likewise present
regarding the reality of my own personal faith.

Years later, when studying the witness of the Holy Spirit, I thought
that I had discovered a natural "fit" for my own experience. And while I
had often envied those believers who quietly "just knew" that Christianity
was correct, I joyfully realized that, whatever it was, I had that
conviction also. In fact, the frequency of my doubts probably gave me far
more than the average number of occasions on which I could observe this
experience first hand.

Before beginning a discussion of the material for this chapter, a
caution is perhaps necessary. To the reader who is inclined to conclude,
as I did for years, that any such discussion is condemned to subjectivity,
I plead at least for a fair reading of the material before any such
conclusion is drawn. On the other hand, if the previous view is still held
afterwards, it still does not affect the central thesis of this volume. In
other words, one can ultimately reject the interpretation given in this
chapter without threatening a cure for doubt. For that reader, this would
then be what C.S Lewis calls "A Chapter Not Strictly Necessary."2 But if I
am correct (or essentially so) then this becomes an integral part of
solving the puzzle of doubt and is a conclusion which certainly ought not
be dismissed. Ultimately, however, I realize that such a topic is somewhat
person-related, in that each believer is asked to reflect on his own
experience in light of Scripture. And I think that it is essentially this
last subject of God's Word, in addition to the experience itself, which
makes this discussion so difficult to just ignore or set on a shelf.

A. What is the Testimony of the Holy Spirit?

I had long believed that one of the most difficult issues in this
entire topic was simply (or not so simply!) attempting to state what was
to be included (and excluded) by the Holy Spirit's witness. What does the
biblical teaching indicate? This problem was partly caused by a seeming
confusion concerning the topic which is apparent from the differences in
interpretation even among theologians of a similar persuasion.4 And of
course, if we are not able to arrive at a meaningful statement of this
testimony, it will then be very difficult to apply any such conclusions to
the issue of doubt.

Beginning our identification5 with the elimination of some common
notions concerning the witness of the Holy Spirit might initially be
helpful. The biblical testimony does not identify this witness with such
overt signs as an audible voice or some extraordinary experience. Neither
does it emanate from human reason, sense experience or emotions.

Rather, after a study of passages such as Rom. 8:15-17 and Gal. 4:6-7,
Bernard Ramm notes that the witness of the Holy Spirit is a "direct
connection from the mind of God to the mind of the Christian." Such direct
testimony therefore occurs at a deeper level than does data gained by
sense experience or by reason. Thus, the Holy Spirit can reach redeemed
persons to a more profound extent than these individuals' abilities to
touch themselves.6

Arguing that this witness is actually intuitive in nature, Ramm
illustrates how this ought not be a stumbling block because all forms of
knowledge require "an irreducible intuitive element." So the testimony of
the Spirit, once again, is direct and not a conclusion which follows from
an argument.7 William Craig refers to it as a self-evident assurance for
the believer.8

Should all believers, then, experience the same at this point and all
in the same way? Ramm carefully points out that the expressions of this
witness are as varied as are individuals themselves. There are also
different levels of intensity involved. For examples, one Christian might
express his experience in a calm, settled manner while another is
dogmatic. Still other believers might be inclined toward a bit more
uncertainty and doubt even though they believe.9

At this point perhaps a clarification ought to be made. We are not
speaking here of the entire ministry of the Holy Spirit. Such is, indeed,
a broad subject and is far beyond the purview of this volume. Rather, we
are speaking of a more specific portion of that ministry, namely, the
testimony given directly to believers regarding their own salvation. And
this work involves the other Members of the Godhead, as well.

So it has been said that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is not
manifest in outward phenomena such as audible voices, extraordinary
experiences or even in spiritual gifts. Such views are simply not
supported by the New Testament. Rather, such is a direct communion between
the Spirit and the redeemed individual, as indicated by passages such as
Rom. 8:15-17 and Gal. 4:6-7. The conviction given is therefore more direct
than that derived from other normal cognitive processes. Yet, this witness
varies in its human expression and intensity while Scripture appears to
say that the purpose for it is much more uniform.

B. The Chief Purpose of the Witness

If we are correct that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is a direct,
substantive connection with the believer, the next issue concerns its
purpose. In fact, whatever else may be thought about the identification
and nature of the witness, the portions of Scripture mentioned earlier
appear to be rather straightforward and specific in their assertions that
its purpose at least includes the subject of the individual's assurance of
his own salvation. For instance, Rom. 8:15-17 refers to the Spirit of
sonship or adoption (v. 15) whereby a response of "Abba" (the Aramaic
which is translated as "Father" or even "Daddy") is evoked from the
believer. But not only does the new believer now address the God of the
universe in a different manner, but the Holy Spirit Himself gives witness
directly to the Christian's spirit that he is, indeed, a child of God (v.
16). Then we are amazingly told that our being a child of God now entitles
us to be co-heirs with Christ Himself (v. 17)!

But perhaps the chief point to be noticed here is that verse 16
portrays the Holy Spirit's testimony as a rather direct communication to
the believer's spirit, specifically informing the Christian of his
familial relationship to God. In another very similar passage (Gal.
4:6-7), we are likewise told that the Holy Spirit is in believers, crying
out "Abba" to God (v. 6). And, once again, we are informed that this
indicates we are sons of God and therefore heirs (v. 7).

There are other New Testament passages which present related messages.
Jesus promised His disciples to send the Holy Spirit (John 14:16), and
they are told that they would recognize Him because He would reside in
them (v. 17). One consequence of this indwelling was that they would
realize their own salvific relationship to Christ (v. 20).

John, likewise, applies such a promise to believers as a whole. At
least twice he informs his readers that they would similarly know of their
own salvation by the presence of the Holy Spirit in them (I Jn. 3:24;
4:13). So, like Paul, here it is also recognized that it is the Holy
Spirit Who provides the personal certainty of the believer's own
salvation.

As we did in the earlier section where we attempted to partially
explain the nature of the Holy Spirit's testimony by identifying what it
also is not, a similar tact may be helpful here. It would appear from
these verses, as well as others, that this witness is not given to judge
the content of theology as a whole or to decide between positions where
Christians may be in disagreement. Not only is there a certain lack of
biblical support for this notion,10 but there is far too much difference
both in New Testament churches and today among spirit-filled believers.

Among commentators, a notable exception to the previous statement is
the view of those who believe that the witness also includes the
conviction that Scripture is God's Word (or even that there are two
witnesses, one to the individual's salvation and one to the Text).11 A
popular passage in this regard is I Cor. 2, although it appears to refer
to the wider ministry of the Holy Spirit, of which the witness is a
specific part. Ramm remarks that the overall intent of this text is still
Christological and soteriological, pointing back in the direction of our
earlier statements. Yet it is admitted that there is a sense in which this
witness will still lead to the recognition of Scripture as God's Word.12

But at any rate, I think few evangelical commentators would disagree
that at least an important portion of the Holy Spirit's personal witness
to the believer is to provide conviction of one's salvation. And many hold
that this is the primary purpose of this testimony.

Ramm is especially adamant on this last point. He states "it is a
witness to individual participation in salvation; of the divine adoption.
The intent of the witness is to bear witness to our participation in this
redemption."13 Thus, the believer's certainty of his salvation is the
chief product of the Holy Spirit's testimony. Such is the possession of
all believers and is not dependent on such things as occupation or
knowledge. In this sense, "the humblest person enjoys the same certainty
as the learned theologians."14

We may conclude by saying that, even if the testimony of the Holy
Spirit includes more, the chief purpose is convicting believers of their
own participation in God's eternal Kingdom. Several New Testament passages
agree at this point. As such, there are tremendous implications here for
the subject of doubt. Since this conviction is directly from God Himself,
the knowledge that one is indeed a believer should produce comfort and
peace for those who question this very point.

C. The Testimony of the Spirit and Proof

Especially for those interested in apologetics, the question of whether
the Holy Spirit's testimony can be proved may be thought to be an
important one. This is perhaps also the case for the individual who is
tormented by the need for assurance of his own salvation.

At the outset it should simply be stated that the Spirit's witness
cannot be proven in and of itself. Neither does it prove the Bible or
Christianity to be true. Rather, the process works in the opposite
direction. Apologetics proves Christianity to be true; the Holy Spirit, in
turn, confesses that the individual believer is a Christian.

But the statement that the testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot be
proven as a phenomenon by itself does not render it valueless, even in
discussions concerning apologetics. Initially, this testimony is not
proven by reason or sense experience, for instance, but neither can it be
disconfirmed by them (or by other methods). Further, in his treatment of
whether this witness is objective or subjective, Ramm interestingly argues
that it is both. The subjective side is seen in the private, inward
aspects of this testimony. Besides being incapable of proof, it cannot be
shared or communicated with an unbeliever in any experiential way (I Cor.
2:14). In other words, while it can be defined, the witness cannot be
explained so that the non-Christian can also experience it and remain a
non-Christian.

But the testimony of the Holy Spirit also has objective aspects in that
it is shared by all believers, hence it can be reported as an experienced
phenomenon (even though it cannot be shared by others). Additionally, the
content on which this witness is based, the facts of the gospel, are
provable.15 Another point might also be made here. If the Scripture can be
attested by independent means, the words on this subject by Jesus, Paul
and John receive an even more substantial evidential basis. So while the
Holy Spirit's testimony is not objectively provable in and of itself, it
is a reported experience of a great many believers and it is firmly
anchored in a solid foundation.

But an additional assertion also needs to be made in this context. Even
what otherwise might be considered as the subjective,
individually-experienced side of this phenomenon can be said to have its
special strengths. Why should an individual's private claims be questioned
simply because they are private? In particular, is there any reason to
disregard this experienced testimony? On the other hand, we have pointed
out how it rests on strongly-attested evidential grounds, as well.
Roderick Chisholm has shown how personal, experiential claims,16 if
unopposed by conflicting evidence, ought to be considered as trustworthy
until there is reason not to do so.17 Similarly, Richard Swinburne
introduces what he terms the "principle of credulity" whereby one's own
experience is actually said to constitute evidence for that belief unless
there is contrary data which disprove it.18

It must also be remembered that, since the Holy Spirit's witness cannot
specifically be proven in any usual sense of that term, it is not being
utilized here as an apologetic for Scripture or for Christianity. So the
skeptic ought not conclude that this is presented as an argument for the
truthfulness of the Christian faith. Rather, as carefully pointed out
above, it is an individual indication from God to the believer that he
has, indeed, experienced regeneration. So while the testimony of the Holy
Spirit is not objectively verifiable, it still functions in its proper
realm and therefore serves the individual in his quest for the certainty
of his own belief. It is thus valuable in solving doubts of this nature.
Again, why ought the Christian not be able to utilize his experience in
this way, especially when it rests on a firm foundation?

There is a final thought worth adding at this point. Since Christians
have good reasons on which to base their faith, why should it be
surprising that, just as Scripture attests, they are personally confronted
by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their own lives? Or stated more
succinctly, should not the discovery that there is such a witness be
considered to be normal in light of the evidenced data which states just
this?

D. Objections

This is a topic concerning which numerous questions or objections are
possible, even from believers. We will attempt to answer a few prominent
queries in this section.

Many believers would probably ask why they do not feel such a testimony
at all? Here it must be remembered that if one is examining oneself for a
feeling, it is perhaps no wonder that such is apparently unnoticed, for
the witness is not an emotion at all, although it certainly can affect the
emotions. In other words, while it can (and does) frequently affect the
emotions, one ought not look for the witness in one's emotions.

Additionally, there is also an important sense in which there can be
many hindrances to such a realization. The witness of the New Testament is
that the Holy Spirit can be quenched or grieved (Eph. 4:30; I Thes. 5:19).
For example, sin can certainly keep one from recognizing God's presence.
But so can the simple denial that the New Testament teaching on the
testimony of the Spirit is really true. Thus, if one denies the biblical
record of the witness, it should not be surprising if one does not appear
to experience it.

In fact, in a sort of vicious circle, doubt regarding one's faith can
also be at least partially responsible for the lack of recognition of the
nature of the Spirit's witness. In this case, the doubt itself can help to
cause a believer to be skeptical in regard to this subject of the Spirit's
testimony because it is not objectively provable. So the very skepticism
can militate against one's recognition of it.

In fact, this is what happened in my own case. For years I questioned
the nature of this witness because it could not be proven. Hence, I simply
tended to ignore the subject. But in this state I effectively cut off my
recognition of it because of my subtle denial of its rightful place in my
life. As a result, I did not properly identify what I now believe actually
was, all during that time, the Holy Spirit's witness.

In sum, it is very difficult to assert in general terms what may be the
issue in any one particular case, but there are, in fact, many possible
reasons for a believer not being able to identify what might actually be
this testimony. Perhaps most frequently, sin, the denial of the witness
(subtle or otherwise) or a lack of recognition of its nature are the chief
obstacles. As Ramm asserts:

The remedy consists in the restoration of spiritual
vision and sight, of the opening of ears and eyes resulting in an
intuition of the truth of God.19

But, at any rate, it is invalid to allow such questioning to keep a
believer from recognizing that Scripture does, in fact, mean something
quite specific by its teaching on this subject. In other words, one's
inability to recognize the nature of the witness in no way denies the
reality of it, while apologetics does prove the basis from which it is
identified.

Another serious query concerns whether theological "liberals,"
adherents to non-Christian religions or cultists might not claim a similar
witness to their own salvation. Might they not also say that they, too,
are totally convinced of their own relationship to God? Here it is
important to remember several points.

Initially, believers need not necessarily judge who belongs under each
label. But beyond this, Ramm argues that these other groups basically do
not have any specific doctrine of the witness. Pointed discussions address
this claim.20

So the issue, then, is not whether someone claims to have assurance
concerning their faith. This, no doubt, might be fairly frequently
reported. Rather, the question is whether they specifically have the
direct, inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. There are some similarities
between assurance and this witness but they are not synonymous. The
primary issue here, to repeat, is whether non-Christians have the
conviction supplied by a direct act of God in us. Presumably, various
kinds of assurance are easier to account for in other ways, but such do
not necessarily exhibit the same characteristics outlined above.

Lastly, however, this question also basically involves an important
apologetic issue: the truthfulness of the belief systems which are being
discussed. In other words, since such claims to assurance (and even the
witness of the Holy Spirit) are not evidential arguments in and of
themselves, we also need to investigate the philosophies from which they
emerge. And we have already said that apologetics establishes Christian
theism while the witness of the Holy Spirit persuades the believer
concerning his personal participation in Christian salvation.21 So the
point here is that more than just a claim is required; Christian claims
concerning the Spirit's testimony are founded on a factual basis. However,
if Ramm is correct in his assessment, there may not be many challenges to
this specific Christian teaching anyway.

But some believers may assert that this doctrine is too emotional,
prompting types of sensationalism or even that it is a witness which is
independent of Scripture. And again, several responses should be made. To
repeat our earlier assertion, the witness of the Holy Spirit is not an
emotion at all. And while it can affect the emotions, this is no
indictment against it, for so do many other Christian teachings which are
not thereby labeled as dangerous.

Additionally, we have made it clear that this testimony is not
independent of the Word of God. In fact it is quite the opposite in that
it is both taught in Scripture and convicts the believer concerning the
nature of the Bible. Also, such should not encourage believers who claim
special, independent teachings from this witness, for we have already
asserted that its primary function is to convict Christians of their own
inclusion in the body of Christ, not to impart private interpretations.

Lastly, this objection misses the mark in that it ultimately does not
matter whether someone thinks this teaching might be misused. The primary
issue concerns whether it is taught in Scripture. In fact, a strange
inversion of this question may now be seen. While the objection asserts
that perhaps Scripture is being sidestepped, the query itself appears to
overlook the biblical teaching on this subject.

Now perhaps some will question if the argument here is circular. If the
witness proves the Scripture and the latter confirms the witness, we have
a problem. And here it must again be said that the testimony of the Holy
Spirit does not prove the Scripture; in fact, it is not a proof at all.
While it can convict a believer that the Bible is the Word of God, this is
just what it is and no more: a conviction. It does not actually constitute
an argument for why Scripture should be believed. So there is no
circularity here for there is no proof involved at all.

Lastly, it may be asked if the witness can be explained
psychologically. Could it be no more than one's personal endorsement on
one's own beliefs, upbringing and culture? Initially, it must be
remembered that the witness of the Spirit is more than being convinced
that one's beliefs are true. Many Christians affirm that this testimony is
much deeper and stronger. They point out that one's assurance often
fluctuates but that the witness is, in a sense, a part of oneself; it is
as if it were woven into the fabric of one's very being. It is what
remains when normal assurance is assaulted to the point of despair. It is
the deepest conviction possible with regard to one's salvation because it
proceeds from God Himself to the believer.

In my own case, it was particularly when doubt assailed me the
strongest that I often noticed this witness. As related above, it remained
firm in those moments when I most feared I was going to lose my faith.
Neither was it just a spark of light at those times: it burst forth with a
conviction which I did not understand. The incident related earlier where
my mother asked me if I would give up Jesus Christ right then was perhaps
the time when this certainty was the clearest. I had passed it off as
indefinable but I then realized that it really was the Holy Spirit's
testimony.

An apt illustration here might be an anchor firmly embedded in rock,
holding a ship in place. As the boat drifts the slack in the chain is
taken up. But, if the anchor is firmly entrenched, the ship reaches a
point where it can drift no further. And while it may float within the
range of the chain's length, it cannot break free. To me, I witnessed my
chain being pulled away on many occasions, only to find that I could not
deny Christ or give Him up for another.

I am not arguing here either for or against the doctrine of eternal
security; only that the personal affect on me was to confirm the true
nature of my faith when I wondered if I was really a believer or if I
could hold on to that salvation. I also realized that it was not my
conviction or my strength that made this so.

But besides the indication that the witness of the Spirit is
essentially different from (and deeper than) psychological certitude, it
is simply the case that psychology cannot explain the objective evidences
upon which the testimony of the Holy Spirit is based. This witness is
essentially soteriological in nature and the basis for such, the gospel
facts, is demonstrable. In other words, the primary function of the
witness is to convict one of his personal salvation. That salvation is
itself based on the gospel data, which can be historically verified and
thus remains untouched by psychological inquiry. And as already said,
since this basis is firm, I should not be surprised if I do, indeed,
experience the testimony of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised.

In sum, the believer is justified in making the assertion that the Holy
Spirit testifies to him that he is, indeed, God's child. While this claim
is not a proof, neither is it disproved by means such as sense experience
or reason. However, it is based on a demonstrable foundation. So the
experience of this witness ought not surprise the believer, inasmuch as it
is just what Scripture attests. Thus, the discovery that this testimony is
present in the Christian's life should be counted as normal in light of
the objectively evidenced data which proclaims just this.

E. Conclusion

Too many Christian apologists and even theologians have virtually
ignored the place of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, perhaps because of
the difficulties involved both in defining it and identifying its domain.
But such ought not be the case. Although this is a difficult subject,22
its contribution, especially on the issue of doubt, is indispensable.

So here we have one more reason to point out that the answer to doubt
is quite often not to introduce more evidence. We have seen in earlier
chapters that most uncertainty is simply not factual in nature and needs
to be handled differently. The work of the Holy Spirit now stands
alongside the other methods both to the extent that He is the Author of
the biblical texts that explain the remedies and by His direct testimony
to believers that they truly are saved.

Endnotes Chapter VIII

1This is not a veiled reference to the doctrine of eternal security. I
am simply describing my perception of my own experience.

2C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1947), Chapter 9.

3For a brief discussion of the importance of person-relatedness to the
presenting of arguments, see George Mavrodes, editor, The Rationality of
Belief in God (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 50.

4For discussions of various positions, see William Cunningham, The
Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (London: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1852, 1967), pp. 118-119; Louis Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 184-185.

5For much of the content of this chapter I am indebted to the excellent
study by Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959).

6Ibid., p. 54; cf. pp. 36, 52, 84, 86, 116.

7Ibid., p. 84.

8William Lane Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984), pp. 18-19.

9Ramm, pp. 74, 76, 82.

10One possible exception is I Jn. 2:20, 26-27 which may speak of a
broader area of certainty. Craig thinks that this passage concerns a
believer's conviction regarding the "basic truths" of Christianity. Yet
Craig still agrees that the Spirit's testimony is not the imparting of
doctrine (pp. 18-19). On this last point, see Ramm, pp. 93-94. Although
Raymond Brown believes that this passage does refer to the Holy Spirit, he
sets forth a case for those expositors who think that the reference is to
the anointing of the Word of God. See Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of
John, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1982), vol.
30, pp. 345-347. However, while John does not specify his remarks in this
difficult passage, he does say that assurance of one's salvation is
included as at least part of the believer's knowledge (I Jn. 3:24; 4:13;
cf. 5:13). Further, John would hardly deny the need for teachers in I Jn.
2:20, 26-27, since he was obviously one himself and this book itself
exhibits the need for such.

11Cunningham asserts that the prominent view among the Reformers was
that the Holy Spirit's testimony is a witness to Scripture, yet notes that
such was strictly to avoid any claim to either independent special
revelation or to the testimony of the church (p. 118). Ramm agrees, noting
that the Reformers' interpretation sought to avoid both personal
experience and reliance on the church (p. 102; cf. pp. 98-105).

12For an enlightening discussion of this topic, see Ramm, pp. 99-105;
cf. also pp. 60-61, 68, 94.

13Ibid., p. 51.

14Ibid., p. 113; cf. p. 82.

15See Ibid., pp. 52, 75-76, 82, 117.

16We have argued that while the witness of the Holy Spirit is not a
feeling, reason or sense experience itself, it does impinge on all three,
for it affects the entire person.

17See Roderick Chisholm, Theory of Knowledge, second edition (Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977), pp. 26-33. Ramm agrees at this point
(p. 76).

18Richard Swinburne, "The Evidential Value of Religious Experience," in
The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, edited by A. R.
Peacocke (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), pp. 182-196.

19Ramm, p. 84.

20Ramm, p. 49, 106-107 and Chapter V.

21This comment is not meant as an attempt to solve the issue by an
imperialistic edict. Rather, I am referring to the strength of the
arguments for the nature of Christianity, as partially suggested in
Chapter III, even though some relevant data were only outlined there. Once
again, this book does not even attempt to set forth a complete apologetic
program.

22It is certainly not being assumed that what is said in this chapter
is the last word on this subject. Everything here ought to be judged by
the rule of biblical data.

Chapter
IX
Heaven: A New Perspective on Life

In one sense, this could be viewed as the single most important chapter
in this volume. Personally, I think that the New Testament perspective on
heaven and its relationship to a believer's life is the most revolutionary
idea (next to salvation) ever penned. And the key word here could well be
just that: perspective. God invites us to view life and death from His
vantage point. This applies to and can revolutionize every- day aspects of
one's life as well, such as one's worries and cares, ethics and
involvement with one's fellow man, possessions, wealth and even pain and
death. The New Testament encourages believers to view each of these,
indeed, one's entire existence, from what we will term a "top-down"
perspective: God and His Kingdom first, followed by our involvement with
others in this life. In fact, it will be our chief thesis that being sure
of heaven and operating from its vantage point can free us to enjoy our
life more while still being involved with what God has called us to do.

In this chapter we will attempt to briefly view numerous New Testament
passages which develop this idea in detail, followed by a consideration of
certain questions concerning this topic. Our overall goal will be to
stress the New Testament imperative to apply this perspective in one's own
life. The affect of this teaching on doubt will hopefully be made evident
as we develop this theme.

A. Matthew 6:19-34: Worry

Few things dominate our modern lifestyle as much as anxiety about any
number of ongoing concerns, both daily and longer range worries. And while
this is Jesus' best-known teaching on the subject, I think it is
frequently misunderstood. Too often, it is assumed that Jesus started that
subject at verse 25 and that His chief purpose was to tell His followers
not to worry because God will care for them, even as He cares for the
birds, lilies and grass (6:26-32). Besides, worry cannot change a thing,
including adding a year to our life or an inch to our height (6:27). So
why do it?

While each of these statements is surely correct and true to Jesus'
instruction as far as it goes, the overall indictment against worrying, as
just presented, does not have the same "bite" as Jesus intended. The
reason for this is that such encouragement is incomplete unless it is
viewed in the more complete context of His words. Verse 25 begins with
"Therefore," indicating that Jesus is basing what comes after on a
previous point; verses 19-24 contain this content.

For Jesus, the believer should lay up treasures in heaven rather than
on earth, for the former are indestructible, while the latter can decay or
be stolen (6:19-20). Besides, as I Pet. 1:3-4 reminds us in language quite
reminiscent of Jesus' words, our heavenly inheritance lasts forever, while
earthly goods obviously do not. And our heart will be where our treasure
is located (6:21). So if we live for earthly treasure we cannot, at the
same time, serve God (6:24).

At this point, I think, Jesus' admonition against worry takes on an
entirely new perspective. It is true that God sustains all of His nonhuman
creation without their worrying about it and that anxiety cannot change
things, but these are additional reasons. The heart of the issue is that,
if our treasures are truly in heaven, then we will simply not be as
concerned about temporal things. It is true that Christians may have
possessions, bills and jobs, for examples, but these are, in and of
themselves, of no ultimate value except for any spiritual results.1 As far
as a believer's loved ones are concerned, although this may be harsh, such
relationships are only eternal to the extent to which the loved ones have
also trusted the Lord.

So again, Jesus' point appears to be that if our heart and our
treasures are in heaven, then we have no need to worry, for these cannot
be disturbed. But conversely, if we are still anxious about earthly
problems, we betray ourselves because then we are revealing that our
hearts are at least partially elsewhere.

Similarly, when Jesus concludes His discourse by asserting that we need
to seek God's Kingdom and His righteousness, first of all, thereby still
being provided with our needs, He is once again maintaining this top-down
perspective. Thus, the order of His comments is heaven (6:19-24), earth
(6:25-32) and the proper perspective between them (6:33-34).

Therefore, to be anxious about our earthly needs is to betray our first
love. And while believers are, of course, only human, thus revealing
typical frailties from time to time, we need to practice Jesus' eternal
perspective until it is our will, too.

B. Luke 10:25-37: Ethical Commitment

In this passage of Scripture (cf. Mk. 12:28-31; Matt. 22:34-40) Jesus
is asked by a lawyer what was required for one to gain eternal life. In
the ensuing conversation, Jesus agreed that the first and greatest
commandment was to love God with all of one's being, followed, second, by
the command to love one's neighbor as oneself. When the lawyer responded
by asking who one's neighbor was, Jesus told the parable of the good
Samaritan. Here, a traveling man (presumably a Jew) was attacked by
thieves and, as he lay wounded, a priest and a Levite walked by and
ignored him. But a Samaritan, normally having no relation with Jews
because of religious differences, stopped, wrapped the man's wounds, took
him to an inn and paid for his expenses himself. Then Jesus told the
lawyer to go and do likewise.

So Jesus taught that there was an order in one's love commitment: first
to God and then to man. And one ought to be radically committed to both,
since the proper way to love God is with one's entire being and the proper
way to love man is by self-sacrificial involvement.

It is very popular today in some critical circles to teach that what
Jesus really meant was that by being committed to others, we are actually
fulfilling our love of God. In other words, instead of the top-down
perspective, we are told that Jesus actually instituted a bottom-up
arrangement instead. Thus, salvation is not an act of faith in Jesus, per
se, but active involvement with others, which actually is faith in God.

Such an assessment is apparently motivated by desires to generalize
Jesus' teachings, often to make them compatible with those of other
religious traditions. But this procedure actually has several pitfalls.
Besides essentially teaching a type of works-righteousness, it very
noticeably ignores Jesus' many injunctions concerning the need for
personal faith in Him. Such teachings are found throughout the gospel
tradition. Jesus did not say that commitment to one's fellow man
constituted an implicit salvific trust in Him, but He did teach regularly
that one must have faith in both His Person and His message.2 Such
interpretations are also reductionistic and tend to minimize Jesus' other
unique claims about Himself, as well.

So we must be prepared to do justice to Jesus' teaching that loving God
above all else is paramount and is a separate act. It is even the basis
for loving man. In fact, in a sense, true love of God should issue forth
into self-sacrificial love to others since God created man in His image
and because Jesus Himself both practiced and commanded the same procedure.
Once again, this is the top-down perspective which we have already
identified. Whereas before this vantage point was applied to the problem
of worry and anxiety, now the second subject is ethical involvement. In
other words, while the issue of first importance remains the same (total
trust in God), the second tier has varied according to the subject being
discussed. But the perspective always remains the same: issues in this
life are to be judged by God's heavenly vantage point.

C. II Cor. 4:7-5:10: Persecution, Pain and Death

It is frequently said that death is the cause of the strongest fears
known to man. Yet, in this passage Paul handles the subject head-on and
challenges believers to think about it in light of the top-down
perspective.

At first Paul speaks of the persecution which he has undergone for the
cause of Christ (4:7-16). Then he appears to shift the subject ever so
slightly to the issue of pain and suffering in general (4:17-18). Lastly,
his interest is the subject of death (5:1-10). To many, this might appear
to be nothing short of a gruesome topic of conversation, but, through
Paul, the Holy Spirit has inspired a beautiful meditation on an otherwise
difficult subject.

At the outset, Paul points out that the persecution which he and others
are undergoing will ultimately lead to their glorification (4:14). This is
quite reminiscent of the same theme in I Pet. 1:3-9 (see next section)
where early Christian persecution is also the topic. And in both places,
the view is away from present circumstances to eternal life with the Lord.

Paul then speaks of afflictions which affect believers. His main point
here is that such pain is only temporal and, as such, believers ought to
be concentrating on eternal life instead (4:17-18).3 Again, this is the
top-down perspective and I think here it is shown to be a brilliant
psychological tool as well as a time-space truth. Personally, I could
think of no better topic of conversation with a Christian who is suffering
pain.

Now some will immediately question this, pointing out that meditation
on eternal life is all well and good, but that it is escapist if it is
thought that such will lessen pain. And while this is a thoughtful
response, I think that it is wide of the mark, and for at least two
reasons. Initially, it needs to be strongly asserted that heaven is a
fact, not an escape route.4 Such is a crucial distinction, for if it is
truly the place for redeemed believers, it cannot be just a fantasy to
confuse suffering minds.

But also, I think there is a sense in which such meditation does, in
fact, lessen pain. Just like those times when we think that we may really
be sick, we frequently experience just such a lift after going to the
doctor when we find out, perhaps, that it is a common form of the flu
which has been "going around." On such occasions, one usually feels
instantly better upon receiving the news. In a similar way, meditation on
heaven can have the effect of causing one to realize that everything will
ultimately be fine. After all even if a believer was to die, he should
know that such is not the end; the illness is not terminal. Such is Paul's
advice to the suffering Christian (4:17-18). Eternal life can be both real
and satisfying for those who suffer.

Then Paul turns from the subject of suffering to that of actual death
(5:1-10). Here he assures the believer that, even if we were to experience
bodily death, we would not face the prospect of extinction but would still
be alive forever. Paul longed for the new body which God would give him
(5:2, 4).5 The reason why death is even preferable is that while we are in
our physical bodies we do not see Christ and are separated from Him
(5:6-7). But, knowing that death meant union with Christ, Paul preferred
to be with Him (5:8). This is precisely why Paul asserts that He would
personally favor dying and being with Christ; to die is actually to gain
(Phil. 1:21-23).

So once again we perceive the top-down perspective with the upper level
remaining virtually the same. In Matthew the chief goal for believers is
to seek the Kingdom of God, where our indestructible treasures are located
(6:19-21, 33). In Luke, after a question concerning eternal life, the
highest priority is given to loving God with one's entire being
(10:25-28). And here in Paul's teachings, believers should appropriate the
reality of eternal life with Christ (II Cor. 5:1-8). In each passage, the
goal for the believer is one's eternal life with God.

From this perspective, life takes on new meaning on its "down" level.
For Jesus, worry and anxiety can be controlled by having one's treasures
elsewhere (Matt. 6:25-32). To the lawyer, Jesus asserted that the love of
others (even enemies) flows naturally from the love of God (Lk. 10:27,
29-37). Paul explains that considering eternal life with Christ should be
of comfort in handling the subjects of persecution, pain and death (II
Cor. 4:16-5:10).

And really, no message should be dearer to the hearts of believers.
What is innately more precious than life and true fellowship with other
persons? If this is so, what could be more desirable than an eternity
spent, among other things, with loved ones and with Jesus Christ, the
Creator and Sustainer of the Universe? I personally cannot think of a more
desirable state in which to spend eternity.6

D. Other Passages

Far more than just these three New Testament passages teach what we
have called the top-down perspective. It has also been applied to other
areas of life, as well. It may even be the most frequently utilized
message in the New Testament for motivating the Christian to action,
whether in helping our fellow human beings or in solving a bothersome
problem.

The ultimate contrast here is made by Jesus in Mk. 8:36-37 (cf. Matt.
16:26; Lk. 9:25) where He asserts that the sum total of the entire world
is not worth one's soul; nothing should be taken in exchange for it.
Accordingly, we are not to fear those who kill our bodies, for that is all
they can do. That which can corrupt our soul and send us to Hell is far
worse (Lk. 12:4-5; Matt. 10:28). In these passages, the comparison is
between eternal life and what earth has to offer--whether temporary wealth
or death. But even in the latter case, the believer has nothing to fear
because all that can be lost is one's present life, which, once again,
places us in the presence of Jesus Himself (II Cor. 5:8). What an
important teaching that can even place death in perspective and bid us not
to fear!

Perhaps a good general statement is the one located in Col. 3:3, where
Paul simply states, "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly
things." Here the contrast is straightforward and the order of importance
should be clear.

More specifically, the subject of physical desires is compared to
heaven in Phil. 3:18-21. Here Paul begins his contrast by viewing those
whose chief desire lies in the pursuit of earthly things such as food or
in the desire for their own glory. He sorrowfully notes that they are
enemies of Christ (3:18-19). But a sharp difference is found between these
and believers who already have heavenly citizenship and who will later
receive bodies like the glorious resurrection body of Jesus Himself
(3:20-21).

The idea that Christians are presently citizens of heaven is a
beautiful truth and is reminiscent of Jesus' teachings that believers
currently have eternal life.7 Such a reality that is true from the time of
salvation provides even more impetus to lay up treasures there and to
think "top-down," because we already are possessors of heaven!

The subject of wealth is another area for the application of thinking
from God's perspective. Paul directs comments to those who are rich in I
Tim. 6:17-19, warning these individuals not to be proud or trust in their
possessions. Rather, they ought to trust in God Who is responsible for the
wealth in the first place. Further, they are to engage in good works,
being willing to utilize their wealth for distribution to those in need
(6:17-18). Such activities build one's heavenly treasures, apparently
affecting the quality of one's eternal life (6:19).

This passage in I Tim. is quite reminiscent of Jesus' words in Matt.
6:19-24 concerning the building of one's heavenly "bank account." In fact,
Paul seems to say that sharing one's wealth appears to be a specific means
to that end.

Another text which contains some similar encouragement, only to very
poor believers, is II Cor. 8:1-5. Here the Macedonian Christians, who
lived in poverty themselves, willingly contributed to the needs of other
believers (8:2-4). But even more interesting in terms of our thesis, the
Macedonians presented themselves to the Lord first, and then to the needs
of others (8:5). Although we are now speaking of poor believers instead of
wealthy ones, the order is the same (see especially Lk. 10:25-37): God
first and then others.

One sobering aspect of these exhortations concerns the believer's duty
to share with others whenever someone is in need. Many times similar
admonitions are made to average members of the Christian community to
provide for those in need. Further, the New Testament as a whole contains
many exhortations to sacrifice, even if one is not wealthy, for the sake
of God's Kingdom.8

And the issue of perspective should still be obvious here: God and His
Kingdom is to be placed first above our wealth and possessions. Besides,
what better investment could one possibly make than to invest in eternity?
As Jesus has already told us, if it is given to the Lord, our wealth
cannot later be stolen, rot or be devalued. It is safe, invested for
eternity in the "banks" of heaven.9

The reality of persecution is the topic for a number of other
perspectival comments. I Pet. 1:3-9 (mentioned just briefly above) is the
most detailed of these texts. With the resurrection of Jesus as the
foundation, we are informed that this historical event is the basis for
the believer's eternal life. And the Christian's existence in heaven, like
that of Jesus, is also incorruptible and permanent (3:3, 4).

As a result, Peter urges believers to view the present persecution as a
temporary problem through which they would persevere and emerge with a
much stronger faith (1:6-9). Strangely enough, Peter tells them to rejoice
in their salvation and eternal life right while they are suffering (1:6).
This is the chief top-down element in this passage. Just as Paul tells
believers to meditate on eternal life during suffering, here Peter
explains that true believers can rejoice even in the middle of
persecution, all because of having a proper perspective on God and
immortality. For the worst that can happen (in human terms) is to die, yet
this ushers us into Christ's presence. For while we do not see Him now,
full salvation follows (1:8-9) when we will be with Him forever (cf. I
Pet. 5:10).

In two other portions, believers were thanked for assisting persecuted
brethren. In Phil 4:14-17 Paul compliments the Philippian believers for
being concerned with and taking care of his needs. His point was not that
he wished to receive gifts but he wanted these Christians to add to their
heavenly accounts (4:17). The author of Hebrews also praises his readers
for joyfully identifying with the needs of believers who were in prison,
reminding them of their rewards in heaven which are both more enduring and
far better than earthly possessions (Heb. 10:34-35). In both contexts, the
reality of heaven was held as the primary reward to be sought above
earthly treasures. In fact, the latter were to be utilized to facilitate
the former.

A fascinating item in the top-down perspective occurs in Hebrews 11.
Here the subject is that of the believer as a pilgrim whose true home is
not on earth but in heaven (cf. Phil. 3:21). For example, Abraham is said
to have been looking for a city which was nowhere to be found on the
earth, whose Builder was God (11:8-10). We read that Moses preferred to
remain with his people rather than enjoy all the riches of Egypt because
he was seeking God (11:24-27). In fact, numerous saints are described as
being "foreigners and strangers on earth" (11:13). Their goal was to find
a land other than their own; they were seeking a heavenly country
(11:14-16). Yet, they did not receive these promises in their own
lifetimes, but such is to be fulfilled in the future (11:13, 39-40).

This idea of the traveler on a journey is a truly exciting one because
of the thought conveyed in the text that the goal was heaven (11:16). This
is a rather revolutionary aspect of the top-down perspective in that it
portrays the believer's time on earth as a continual, lifelong pilgrimage
toward heaven. And in a sense, believers are never fulfilled until they
arrive there. But it should be carefully noticed that these travelers were
not inactive; each was committed to the Lord and to his individual
ministry.

The idea of the believer's journey to heaven has also appeared as a
major idea in classical Christian literature such as The Pilgrim's
Progress. Another such example is Jonathan Edward's "The Christian
Pilgrim," which is an exhortation to the single-minded pursuit of eternal
life. As Edwards explains:

Therefore it becomes us to spend this life only as a
journey towards heaven, as it becomes us to make the seeking of our
highest end and proper good, the whole work of our lives; to which we
should subordinate all other concerns of life. Why should we labor for
or set our hearts on any thing else, but that which is our proper end,
and true happiness?10

Lastly, we briefly mentioned earlier that Phil. 1:21-23 is a classic
passage regarding death, where Paul asserts that, given his preference, he
would choose dying and being with Christ, which is far better than living
here. That kind of conviction is significant, especially because Paul had
both seen the Lord (I Cor. 9:1) and had a vision of heaven, perhaps while
being left for dead outside Lystra (II Cor. 12:1-5). At any rate, he very
much wished to be with Jesus (II Cor. 5:8). From Paul's top-down vantage
point, heaven is not only to be preferred above earthly life, but his
ministry unto the Lord was done in light of heaven (Phil. 1:24-26).

Even this brief survey indicates that there are many New Testament
passages which argue that one's earthly actions ought to be done from the
perspective of the Kingdom of God. This twofold stress on the believer
loving God and spending eternity in a relationship with Him should be a
tremendous catalyst in obeying Jesus' second command of radically loving
one's fellow human being.

E. Questions

Some might pose several queries or even objections to the thesis
presented here. For example, one may wonder about the Christian who
asserts that, now that he is saved, he does not need to be involved in
"earthly" things like social concerns. Or while it may manifest a
different attitude, a similar result proceeds from those who are "so
heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good." While these could
represent divergent positions, both advocate non-involvement in social
concerns (or at least that such is not very crucial).

It should be fairly obvious that such theses are quite opposed to
several of the texts discussed above. In Lk. 10:25-37, Jesus stated in the
strongest terms that involvement with other persons in need is the second
highest command. While it is true that such is not the very highest, it
was given more importance than all the others after it. I Tim. 6:17-19
commands wealthy Christians to be generous in contributing to the needs of
others. In Heb. 11, believing pilgrims are not only seeking heaven, but
they were honored for their involvement with the needs of others in the
world. Additionally, Christians are encouraged to do likewise (Heb. 12:1).

But not only are Christians told to practice such involvement with
others, but we are also given examples of those who got involved in this
way. In II Cor. 8:1-5, poor believers assisted others in spite of their
own poverty. In both Phil. 4:14-18 and Heb. 10:34-35, believers
contributed to other persecuted Christians.

Additionally, the Christian message might even be said to naturally
lead to involvement with others as an integral extension of the gospel.
Thus, one is saved by trusting commitment to Jesus Christ but, being the
second commandment, believers are then to turn to assisting others. This
is true for more than one reason. Jesus showed His love by dying for us
(Jn. 15:13) and He called on believers to show self-sacrificial love to
others (Jn. 15:12). It may be helpful here to be reminded that the parable
of the good Samaritan in Lk. 10:30-37 is an answer to the question of the
identity of the neighbor whom we should love (Lk. 10:27, 29). In fact,
helping others is said to essentially be done to Christ Himself (Matt.
25:40; cf. 10:42). Conversely, when we do not show love to others, we fail
to show it to Christ, as well (Matt. 25:45). Besides, if fellowship with
God in heaven is the greatest good, love requires us to encourage others
to exercise their choice or at least to be informed in this matter.

Lastly, the fact that some Christians do not practice the love of man
called for by Jesus is not an indictment against Christianity as a whole.
It simply shows that some do not obey Jesus, not that His teaching is
thereby mistaken. In the case of those whose views keep them from being of
any earthly good, it ought to be clear that this is not a biblical
position; it is rather an example of the very self-centeredness and
smugness against which Jesus constantly warned.

Another issue concerns those who question whether what is being taught
here is any sort of salvation by works. So it is crucial to point out that
a discussion of salvation per se has not been the point of this chapter at
all. Basically, we have only spoken to believers who have already trusted
in the Person of Jesus Christ and His death to pay for their sins,
believing that He was later buried and raised from the dead (as outlined
in Chapter IV). When we discussed love for one's fellow man, we were
already referring to those who had previously become Christians. I want to
be very clear about this. The first level of commitment is to God; that to
our fellow man comes after salvation has already been attained.

A very important tendency in contemporary theology questions the last
point and asserts that all Jesus meant was that by loving others one
essentially does fulfill the first command to love God. In other words,
this position holds that Jesus did not require any personal salvation in
the sense of commitment to Himself. Rather, to be committed to one's
fellow man is to be committed to Jesus Christ. Thus, there is no specific
content which one must personally believe in order to obtain salvation. To
say it the way it is frequently verbalized, we encounter God in our
neighbor.

This is a serious challenge to the orthodox understanding that
salvation is a personal relationship between the individual and God,
achieved through the extension of the grace of God to the one who then
trusts in Him. Such a concept is interpreted as being achieved through an
encounter with one's neighbor. But there are at least two major problems
with such conjecture.

Initially, this view does injustice to Jesus' repeated teachings that
one's personal trust in Him is indispensable for salvation.11 But
additionally, it is also clear that His work (and His death, in
particular) is crucial to one's salvation, and as far more than just as a
moral example.12 Thus, beyond simply a commitment to others, as important
as that is, the nature of the gospel is chiefly the content of who Jesus
is and what he has done. But in addition, salvation consists of personal
trust in (and commitment to) the Jesus of that gospel content.13 So, if
one wishes to be consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the New
Testament, one's trust in the Jesus of the gospel is required for personal
salvation.

Now, of course, one may hold that Jesus was wrong or that He should not
be interpreted literally. But such a position is opposed by the evidence,
for instance, of His resurrection. For since Jesus was raised from the
dead, this provides strong reasons to hold that His teachings on salvation
are true, especially since it was His central message.14 To restate this
point, since Jesus was raised from the dead, His teachings are accurate.
And if any of His teachings is true, those on the Kingdom of God and how
to get there certainly would be since this is His chief message, as
recognized by virtually all theologians who deal with this topic.15

Lastly, a serious query concerns the reason why believers lay up
treasures in heaven, for one might wish to do so for the sake of rewards
themselves or to display one's own glory. Recognizing that such selfish
goals are certainly not the point in the New Testament passages such as
those discussed above,16 we should perhaps restate the nature of the
biblical hope. We have said that the highest goal for man is to fellowship
with Jesus and our loved ones forever. The loftiest statement of any
human, ecclesiastical creed may be the one contained in the Westminster
Confession which states that the "chief end of man is to worship God and
enjoy Him forever" (Article).

For this reason, Christians should constantly examine their motives and
determine to keep the top-down perspective in check so that both one's
desires and one's practices are biblical. A constant balancing of
priorities is crucial here.

Peter Kreeft proposes an interesting experiment which will perhaps be
useful in ascertaining the true nature of one's motives with regard to our
longing for eternal life.17 If Jesus said to you, "Make your own
heaven--you may have whatever you wish, including . . . wealth, . . .
power, . . . pleasure, . . . peace, . . . or great glory and honor from
all of your friends." While you are thinking about each of these, as well
as other options, you then hear Jesus add, "However, there is only one
condition--you will never see my face." What is your very first thought?
Did you experience a sudden chill or did you feel crestfallen? Or were you
secretly satisfied in spite of the condition?

If the former response was yours, this may be a fair indication that
your desires may at least be heading in the right direction. If, on the
other hand, the latter response was inwardly desirable, then I would
suggest that something needs to be corrected, perhaps through repentance
and the healing work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe meditations such as might
emerge from Chap. VII on the Person of Jesus might be utilized in order to
bring the delight of His presence and fellowship into our consciousness.

F. Conclusion

It was stated at the outset that this could be the most important
chapter in this volume. But its relationship to the subject of doubt may
not be immediately known.

Earlier (Chapter V) it was said that perhaps the strongest impetus to
affect one's volition and cause faith to grow is the nurturing of a
heavenly vision. Thus, setting one's sights on this highest goal can cause
one to make biblical decisions in light of it.

But this heavenly perspective can also have a tremendous affect on
other sorts of doubt, as well. For example, assurance of the reality of
eternal life could ultimately solve what is perhaps the chief question
confronting those with factual doubts. In this case, the evidences for
immortality, such as Jesus' resurrection, supply the factual basis, while
practicing the top-down perspective then serves to apply the data to
practical life situations such as those mentioned in the New Testament.18
Thus, beyond the evidences themselves, this perspective specializes in the
application of the facts. More particularly for factual doubters,
continuing to center on the reality of heaven until it becomes a habit can
serve to calm and perhaps even still the greatest uncertainty known to
man. As Paul asserts in II Cor. 4:17-5:8, Christians can both know that
they have eternal life (5:1-8) and meditate on its meaning for victory
over life's concerns (4:17-18).

For those tending towards emotional doubts, the reality of eternal life
with God in heaven could be the most comforting truth to calm raging
fears. It will perhaps be remembered that the key in controlling this type
of uncertainty is the constant practice of supplying truth instead of the
untruths which one is believing (Phil. 4:6-9). But Christians could
scarcely learn any deeper truth than that outlined in the New Testament.
And with regard to the application to emotional doubts in particular,
Jesus said it best in Matt. 6:19-34: the believer ought to lay up
treasures in heaven, realizing that if his heart is truly there, he should
be able to conquer life's anxieties. In this case, man's chief cause of
worry (death) has been dealt with; if the worst that problems in this
life, (such as emotional doubts) can do is affect the believer in earthly
terms, he has nothing ultimate to fear. And conversely, God has promised
that over earthly needs will be met, as well (6:33).

Now it would be a mistake to assume that exhaustive knowledge of heaven
is needed in order to fulfill these tasks. Neither is such being
proclaimed here. As a matter of fact, we know comparatively little about
the nature of eternal life. But the facts indicate that Jesus died and, by
rising from the dead, revealed to us all that we need to know to conquer
such doubts. In fact, not only does His resurrection insure the
truthfulness of His teachings on this subject of central importance, as
mentioned above, but when the disciples saw the risen Jesus, they actually
saw walking, talking, eternal life.

Thus, the resurrection both confirms Jesus' teachings on the subject of
eternal life, especially since it was His major message, and it is also an
actual, direct example of that new life. As such, every bit of evidence
for Jesus' resurrection is actually corroboration of the believers' life
after death. We may not know very much above heaven, but the resurrected
Jesus insured the truth of it and provided enough information to conduct
our lives by His top-down perspective.

What a glorious truth has been provided for believers! Christianity is
not based on a mere hope-so eternity. In the New Testament, Christian hope
is based on the factual data; it is as sure as is the resurrection of
Jesus (I Pet. 1:3-4). And beyond the mere facticity of this event, such a
teaching also provides us with a heavenly perspective for the everyday
doubts, problems and fears of life. These fears need not dominate a
Christian's earthly existence.

Endnotes -- Chapter IX

1. For example, Christians involved in a ministry of some sort (I mean
in the broader sense, beyond the professional types alone) cam certainly
reap some eternal results.

2. There are at least two aspects to Jesus' demand for personal trust
and commitment to Him. Jesus both required commitment to His own Person
(see Matt. 10:37; 18:3,6; Mk. 10:29-30; Lk. 24:47; Jn. 1:12; 6:47) and the
appropriation of the work which He performed in His death (Mk. 10:45;
Matt. 26:28; Jn. 3:15-17).

3. The subject in 4:17-18, may in fact, still be that of persecution.
But, except for rewards which accrue to believer's due specifically to
such persecution, Paul's words would still apply to the issue of Christian
suffering in general.

4. It must be remembered once again that this is not a book of
apologetic evidences, as we pointed out in Chapter III above, although we
did list some evidences for the resurrection there which are relevant at
this point. For additional details and an argument from Jesus'
resurrection to eternal life, see Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An
Apologetic, especially chapters IV-V and Appendix 3.

5. There is much discussion as to whether Paul is here speaking of the
intermediate or the final, eternal state. But that he is addressing the
issue of eternal life is not actually debated. See Robert Gundry, Soma in
Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
Company, 1987), pp. 149-154.

6. Again, see Kreeft's Heaven: The Heart's Deepest Longing.

7. This is most commonly a Johannine theme. See Jn. 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; I
Jn. 5:13. Cf. Eph. 1:13-14; II Thess. 2:13-17.

8. See such passages as Matt. 19:27-30; Lk. 12:33; 14:33; Js. 2:15-17;
I Jn. 3:17-18.

9. By these last statements it is not meant that Christians are to
selfishly accumulate "heavenly wealth" as if for their own advantage. See
section E below.

10. Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards: Basic Writings (New York:
New American Library, 1966), p. 142.

11. For a few examples, see Matt. 10:37; 18:6; 19:28-29; Lk. 24:47;
1:12; 3:3-5, 36; 6:47. Compare I Cor. 15:1-2; I Pet. 1:21-23; I Jn. 5:13.

12. For instances, see Matt. 26:28; Mk. 10:45, Jn. 3:15-17. Compare I
Cor. 15:3-4; Eph. 1:7; I Pet. 2:24.

13. Again, see Chapter IV for a discussion of the content of the gospel
and its relation to one's faith.

14. Once more, to avoid confusion, this is not a volume of apologetics.
An outline of some of the evidences for the resurrection is also included
in Chapter III.

15. On the centrality of salvation in the teachings of Jesus, see
particularly those texts where Jesus states the chief purpose of His
coming, such as Mk. 2:17; 10:45; Lk. 19:10; Jn. 10:10. On the recognition
of this point by contemporary theologians as a whole, see Habermas, The
Resurrection of Jesus, Chapter IV-V.

16. In fact, Rev. 4:10-11 graphically portrays the 24 heavenly elders
casting their crowns before God's throne so that He might receive the
honor and glory.

17. This exercise is adapted from Kreeft's Heaven, p. 27.

18. Such a strategy would then be similar to that which was presented
in Chap. III, where Christian evidences supplied the basis (even though
such was not developed in this volume) for the practical application to
the factual uncertainty.

Chapter
X
Conclusion

Christian doubt of several varieties is much more prevalent than many
believers realize and it can be an extremely painful malady for those who
suffer from its affects. In this manuscript we have attempted to cover a
wide range of material on the subject. Even so, much more remains to be
done.1

I have postulated that it is important for particular doubts to be
identified as to the predominant variety which is present in order to best
facilitate healing. So although doubts are frequently compound in nature,
they can still be treated. The practice of biblical strategies is crucial
to the conquering of Christian uncertainty and we have attempted to point
out several of these in this text.

A. When a Warning is Required

As Os Guinness so clearly asserts in an excellent discussion, there too
frequently come times in Christian's lives when it might appear obvious
that a fellow believer, because of doubts, is in danger of denying some
portion of his faith.2 In such a case, in spite of all the evidences, or
emotional supports, or admonitions to the will, a believer may continue
down the path away from biblical teaching, refusing to avail himself of
the needed solutions. And here is perhaps the clearest indication that
such doubt ultimately comes down to a matter of the will: some persons
just do not choose to react in a biblical manner.

Such a state of mind is very serious and it often requires a
combination of traits by way of response. Sensitivity is crucial,
especially the discernment needed to detect such a condition in another
individual. Boldness may also be required, especially in cases where a
strong response is needed due to the dire consequences at stake. Here even
the meekest of believers may find himself in a situation where he is best
positioned to respond to one in need. The possible dangers should outweigh
the individual's desire not to get involved.

How might such a condition be recognized? Initially, it should be
emphasized that there may be no clear-cut assurances that such a state has
been reached. For instance, the individual in question may have
exaggerated his reactions in order to get attention. Or the earmarks may
simply have been missed or misinterpreted; maybe the person has kept most
of the true conditions to himself.

At any rate, there are still some signs which, if they are observed in
another, might indicate some concerns of this nature. Guinness notes one
such factor as a constant complaining and grumbling against God,
reminiscent of the attitude of ancient Israel. Another warning could come
from the presence of questions about God, but with an attitude change
which reveals that the doubts may actually have become unbelief. And in
the end Guinness notes that the last stage may be signaled by the
individual who denies everything but his basic belief in God. Here there
is still an awareness and fear of God, but the emotions actually drive the
person away instead of back towards Him.3

To these signs, a few additional ones might be added. Insensitivity to
spiritual things is certainly a warning at least of a dulled spiritual
awareness. The lack of Christian activity (or "fruit") is a scriptural
indication of danger (Matt. 7:18-20; Heb. 6:7-8). Also, another pointer is
the way in which God is spoken of by this person. Flippant remarks or
callous language about Him can indicate problems as well.

Lastly, an important warning sign is illustrated by the Christian who
regularly experiences a stultification of his will with specific regard to
the state of his faith. Thus, given a situation where a decision must be
made for or against continuing to follow Christ, the individual appears to
be unable to choose. One young man who came to see me manifested just this
problem. Having been involved in a sinful practice for a number of years,
he had begun to drift away from his Christian convictions. In fact, in
this case it was his lifestyle which was the primary cause of his growing
preference for another philosophy; he was shifting his allegiance. It was
necessary that he be confronted in clear terms in order to warn him of how
his will had changed.

However, we must emphasize here that we are not called upon to make
pronouncements concerning when an individual may have reached "the point
of no return." This matter is up to God alone and ultimately known only to
Him. We are, rather, to watch and judge ourselves first so that we do not
fall (I Cor. 10-12; 11:31). We can then also provide genuine help (by the
Lord's power) when it is needed and wherever possible, but not to act as
the judge and jury.

But another caution also needs to be voiced here. It is certainly
possible that the sensitive Christian reader who is not presently in
danger of denying his faith will study this previous list of signs and
fear that he is in a more serious state than he is, in actuality. This
individual might well be reminded to apply the Misbelief Therapy spoken of
earlier.4 Or if the person is concerned about sin in his life, forgiveness
may be sought from the God who has promised to forgive. In general, the
Bible teaches that wherever true conviction remains, there is certainly
hope and the possibility of forgiveness.

But what about those who are in danger at this point, as with those who
actually do manifest some of these signs? What might believers do to help
them? Guinness reminds the Christian that before any action is undertaken
he should be sure that the problem has been prayerfully and correctly
diagnosed. Such is too serious of a matter to take lightly. One must be
sure that one's motives are clear, as well. There is no room for actions
due to pride or resentment, for instance.5

Once these cautions have been observed, however, one does need to act
in those cases where it is still plain that a fellow believer might be in
danger of denying some portion of his faith. And after ascertaining if the
person is at least willing to talk, it might be suggested, first, that
there is an initial need to listen closely in order to correctly identify
the type of doubt involved and how far it has progressed. Here one may
choose to utilize some of the same data which we developed earlier for the
identification of one's own uncertainty.6 At any rate, the doubter should
be apprised of the situation, including why he is expressing these doubts.

Second, the counselor should assist the doubter in working through the
appropriate steps which apply to the particular type of uncertainty in
question. Helping the doubter not only to understand the cause but also a
cure for his problem could be very helpful in assisting him through this
difficult time.

Another step in the possible healing process is to confront the doubter
with both the peril involved in his indecision (or perhaps even in his
actual decision against his Christian faith if such has already been
made), along with God's promise of eternal life for those who correctly
respond to His call. This is the point at which we have to be firm in our
response to his condition. A possible approach involves a discussion of
God's judgment, including a treatment of His future promises. But we must
be careful not to pronounce any specific judgment on the individual
himself since God is His judge and we do not know his final condition.7 In
other words, a general warning concerning God's judgment juxtaposed with a
challenge regarding eternal life might be very helpful.

This emphasis on eternity is similar to our discussion in the last
chapter about providing one's will with a vision for action. There we said
that the best motivation for Christian behavior occurs when God's
perspective influences us enough that His reasons for commitment become
our reasons. And it was concluded that there is no greater impetus for
faith and personal action than the prospect of eternal life in heaven with
Jesus Christ, which is personally guaranteed by Him to be a creative,
inspiring, learning experience which lasts forever. Such is the chief New
Testament motivation for a believer's commitment.8

Lastly, the individual needs to be reminded that God can forgive our
sins, including our doubts concerning Him. The hope of forgiveness might
be just what the individual needs at this point in order to repent. Of
course, true conviction and repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit; it
is not even in the domain of human abilities. Nonetheless, we should
stress the need for a true decision. Believers are called to counsel
fellow believers in this regard (Gal. 6:1). In fact, few Christian
activities are as rewarding as the prospect of helping an erring believer
back to the Lord (Js. 5:19-20).

So once we have prayerfully diagnosed a problem to the best of our
ability, ascertaining if our motives are biblically correct, we need to
confront the person at whatever level is needed. We have suggested that
the counselor initially listen, identifying the type of doubt involved and
approximately how far it has progressed. Then, working through the
appropriate steps with them for that particular doubt could be vitally
important in their recovery. Explaining both the seriousness of God's
judgment and His promise of eternal life can supply the biblical impetus
for action. Prompting the person to obey the Lord in repentance is a last
step to restoration.

Of course, it should be recognized that regular follow-up will probably
be needed. In fact, fellowship and constant progress in one's faith are
especially important here to help insure a final victory. And since such
restoration is ultimately due to God's prompting and activity, His
guidance should be sought by such means as prayer, Scripture study and
meditation, including both the counselor and the counselee. Doubt
prevention techniques can be applied both to oneself and to another who is
in need.9 Remembering C. S. Lewis' admonition that believers are rarely
argued away from Christianity in an abrupt fashion but more regularly
"drift" away,10 we need to be ever watching (I Cor. 10:12).

B. The Christian's Hope

Few things are perceived by doubting individuals to be as blessed as is
the prospect of being relieved of one's uncertainty, especially with
regard to one's eternal destiny. And after everything has been said, it
must still be acknowledged that doubt can even lead to positive results
which otherwise might not occur. The correcting of one's thinking, the
experience of more fruitful times of Bible study, prayer, witnessing and
fellowship, the initiation of Christian meditation, a deeper pursuit of
scholarly study and cultivation of viewing one's life from God's eternal
perspective are just some of the benefits which might arise from the
conquering of one's Christian doubts. Each of these can help motivate a
believer to a deeper relationship with the Lord.

Scripture relates that Christ came to remove the fear of death (Heb.
2:14-15). We are also told that the hope of Jesus' resurrection is to
assure the believer of eternal life, an inheritance which is impervious to
corruption and which is reserved for us in heaven (I Pet. 1:3-5; cf. Matt.
6:19-20). Such is God's promise to the one who is committed to Him.

In this way, the conquering of doubt can actually lead straight to a
re-orientation process which cultivates God's eternal perspective. A
glimpse of His holiness and the reality of eternal life with Him should
motivate us to a lifetime of commitment, by His grace and power.

Backus and Chapian address the subject of this change as follows:

Jesus Christ is the foundation of our lives, not
ourselves alone and not another person or persons. When we become God's
children the great I dies and there's a change, sweet as morning, that
takes place and we trade banners: the old used I for a shiny
impenetrable His.11

In this process, the believer should recognize that loving and praising
God for His own sake (apart from His promises and blessings to us) is the
highest good in the universe. But fellowship with Him forever is also
promised to us. Such blessings will be beyond our greatest expectations.

Endnotes--Chapter X

1As mentioned at the outset, this manuscript has been composed as a
follow-up to the Spring Lectureship at Western Seminary (January, 1988)
and is part of a much larger (projected) manuscript for publication as a
book. But even so, more work needs to be done, like the light which other
disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry, education, sociology and
exegetical theology might shed on the subject of doubt.

2 Guinness devotes a chapter to this aspect of the problem of
uncertainty (Chapter 15). It should be noted that the doctrine of eternal
security is not being denied here. As a matter of fact, this doctrine is
not even being discussed at this juncture or elsewhere in the manuscript.

3Guinness, pp. 239-242.

4See especially Chapter IV in this manuscript for details.

5Guinness, pp. 243-244.

6See Chapter II for this emphasis.

7Even with the doctrine of eternal security, we can never finally tell
whether a person ever truly committed his life to Christ in the first
place, for instance (see I Jn. 2:19).

8See Chapter V, B. The highest good in the universe is arguably to
praise God for His own sake. But our point here is that the New Testament
utilizes the prospect of eternal life as the chief motivation for
Christian action.

9See Chapter V, D, E.

10Mere Christianity, p. 124.

11Backus and Chapian, p. 41.

Appendix:
Development
Theory and Doubt

Abraham and Sarah had their doubts. John the Baptist and Peter
expressed anxieties about their faith. Even the Lord Jesus, on the cross,
raised questions concerning His relationship with the Father. In addition
to identifying some of these Bible character profiles, the following
section intends to provide a brief survey of relevant and related theories
on doubt, utilizing the twin disciplines of theology and social science. A
range of perspectives will be cited to illustrate the breadth of coverage
that has been given to the topic of doubt. More restrictive, theological
positions (e.g., "All doubt is wrong") will be compared and contrasted
with less restrictive views (e.g., "Doubt is necessary for maturity"). The
well-known "reporter's questions" will frame the organization of this
overview in theology and social science.

A personal experience

A dozen mornings before Christmas in 1987, my
five-and-one-half-year-old daughter rounded the corner of the bathroom
where I was shaving and issued an unprovoked testimonial:

"I don't believe in Santa," Melissa began. "And I don't believe in the
Easter Bunny either." Then, with resolve, she added, "And I don't
believe in angels."

Catching my breath at this barrage of denials, I found myself unable to
get a word in edgewise, for this second-oldest child subsequently offered
a single retraction: "Oh, I guess I do believe in angels."

"Why do you still believe in angels?" I questioned, not really knowing
how to start.

"Angels are up in heaven. When you get old and die and go up to heaven,
they will be there," Melissa claimed matter-of-factly.

After I noted a couple of references to angels in the Bible, she
reiterated, "Yeah, that's right, the Bible says a lot about angels. I do
believe in angels."

My preschooler seemed finished with what she had to say, for she headed
for the door. But I wanted to know more about the two other subjects that
she categorically denied existence. "Then why don't you believe in Santa
or the Easter Bunny?" I pressed.

Referring to the first denial, Melissa scientifically rationalized,
"I've never heard him scratching when he comes down the inside of the
chimney. And I don't hear his reindeer."

Turning her thoughts to the Easter Bunny, she deduced, "He really
can't write names [i.e., on Easter cards] and stuff like that. He can't
make all those baskets that quick. And he doesn't have money to buy those
things [Easter candy, etc.]."

End of discussion. And beginning of a new growth phase for Melissa.

Just what was it that brought out this confession of denials in my
daughter? How long had she been struggling with these issues? Did the
ideas just suddenly "make sense" to her? Were her doubts simply a natural
part of growing up or were they more like the green-eyed monster from
Shakespeare's Othello?

"Who?"
You Are Not Alone

Goethe, the world renowned thinker, claimed that the primary theme
throughout human civilization has been the relentless struggle between
belief and unbelief. In certain historical periods (such as the
Keformalion), faith prevailed as victor—whereas on other occasions,
unbelief and despair have been triumphant. Harvard's G. W. Allport admits,
"Our own age, we know, is a period of doubt and negation."1

In 1985, the Gallup Organization conducted a telephone interview
with more than one thousand adults concerning perceptions of their faith
maturation. To a great extent, this national survey confirms the suspicion
of Allport: we do live in a generation of doubt. Though the word doubt was
never used by the interviewing team as such, synonymous phrases were
employed throughout the survey (as, for example, the phrase "questioning
early beliefs"2). The Gallup survey discovered that the majority of
adults (65 percent) believe a person's faith "should" change (vs. "should
not") throughout life "just as one's body and mind change."^ (Only 32
percent believed faith should not change.) Church members were more
convinced that faith should not change (should = 58 percent; should not =
39 percent), contrasted with nonmembers (73 percent and 24 percent,
respectively). A comparison of all surveyed men and women shows
almost identical results in gender, as males favor change (66
percent) over no change (32 percent), and females stand 64 percent to 32
percent in their respective selections. In response to a similar question
the data shows that

three in four adults believe a person's faith is
strengthened by questioning curly beliefs. There is a high degree of
consensus on this point among all demographic groups. Even among those
who do not believe one's faith should change nearly four in five (79%)
hold to the position that faith is made stronger by questioning early
beliefs.4

Asked about actual experiences they had, 71 percent of all
respondents acknowledged that their "faith changed significantly" at some
time in their recent or remote past. Only 29 percent stated that they
had never experienced such a change.' When they were asked about the
results of such a significant faith change, "the majority experiencing a
change [reported! that their faith |was| stronger (82 percent) and more
meaningful (81 percent) as a consequence." "Also as a result of this
change, 49 percent of the national group believed that their faith was "a
little different," 45 percent found their faith to be "totally different,"
and 6 percent had no opinion.7

But rather than highlighting a new trend, the Gallup survey simply
affirms a historic pattern. For even the early church Father Tertullian
expressed his personal anxiety over the tensions caused by doubt. On the
one hand, he acknowledged that, a searching faith (prompted by doubt)
produced certain rewards. On the other hand, he bemoaned the futility of
doubt's endeavors:

But if we are bound to go on seeking as long as there
is any possibility of finding ... we shall be always seeking and
never believing. What end will there be to seeking? What point of rest
for belief? Where the fruition of finding? There will be no end . . .
and 1 shall wish I had never begun to seek.8

Religious educator Leon McKenzie concludes that doubt is a generic
condition of num. just as natural as the functioning of the human senses.
Moreover, doubt is an ever-present reality: "We come into the world with
question marks in our heads. We strive for intelligibility and purpose. We
seek a perspective or framework for our being-in-the-world." McKenzie then
promises, "The question marks in our heads are never fully erased."9

Furthermore, several prominent studies indicate that this human
condition of doubt is not limited to adulthood. Since doubt
originates, in part, from the more pervasive intellectual (or
cognitive) development of all persons, children and youth often experience
very serious questioning of their faith as well. In fact (as it will
be later shown), the period of adolescence typically brings about the most
tumultuous faith struggles. With this in mind, psychology professor
Michael Chandler observes that "between childhood and maturity there
automatically occurs a deeply problematic period of epistemological
confusion, marked by the collapse of absolute conviction and defined
by an outcropping of nascent skeptical doubt" (emphasis added).10

Is there anyone who is immune to this perceived nocuous condition? If
there is, it tends not to be the Christian. For in the believer's
sincerest attempts to search for truth and to confront the ultimate issues
of life, there often appears to be some universal, ironic twist—where the
seeker turns skeptic.

As an outgrowth of his doctoral work in social relations at
Harvard, Philip M. Helfaer observes that "doubt and the seeds of
doubt—despair, skepticism, and angry question of God's justice—arc the
central themes in the Judeo-Christ inn tradition." Prominent examples, he
says, include Job's "sense of abandonment," "the Preacher's dry skepticism
in Ecclesiastes," and Jesus' own lost cry of Matthew 27:46 (King James
Version): "My Clod, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"11

Echoing this observation, Allport has noted that "the mature religious
sentiment is ordinarily fashioned in the workshop of doubt."1- Even
members of the esteemed profession of theology must succumb to this
human tendency, as Protestant leader Karl Barth testifies:

No theologian, whether young or old, pious or less
pious, tested or untested, should have any doubt that for some reason or
other and in some way or other ho is also a doubter. . . . No one, not
even the theologian, can escape doubt.13

"what?"
understanding the nature of doubt

Doubt has been broadly defined as "the calling into question of either
beliefs or practices of one's religious tradition, or of organized
religion in general."" Whether or not this definition is employed, one
thing is certain: the subject of doubt is a volatile one. As such, it
becomes imperative that certain misnomers or incorrect designations for
doubt be identified and rejected as misleading.

WHAT DOUBT IS NOT

First, doubt is not necessarily sin. Christian educator Elmer
Towns states that, contrary to some interpretations, "Eve did not sin
when she doubted God, but when she disobeyed God. Today, doubts simply
cannot be eradicated, even by the miracle of the new birth."l5 To look at
it another way, within the context of Scripture there is a marked
difference between the "doubt" of the Pharisees (see Matt. 21:23-27) and
the "doubt" of John the Baptist (see Matt. 11:1-6). In the first case, a
"don't confuse me with the facts" mentality is expressed. In the latter
case, however, John's teachable attitude—in the midst of his doubt—could
be paraphrased "Please help me to resolve this complex faith problem."

Second, doubt is not necessarily disbelief or denial. Barth comments,
"Doubt only means swaying and staggering between Yes and No. It is
only an uncertainty."16 Allport elaborates this fact through a composite
of comparison and contrast:

Disbelief is a negative, rejecting response or
attitude. ... Doubt, like disbelief, is technically a secondary
condition of menial life. It is an unstable or hesitant reaction,
produced by a collision of evidence with prior belief, or of one belief
with another. It is apparent that disbelief is relatively more final and
single-minded than is doubt.17

Towns further illustrates this contrast: "Doubt is not. unbelief.
Unbelief is rebellion against evidence that we cannot or will not accept.
Doubt is stumbling over a stone that we do not understand. Unbelief is
kicking at a stone that we understand all too well. 18

Third, doubt is not necessarily detrimental. Columbia University's
Philip Phenix offers a helpful distinction between differing types of
doubt. He labels the first category "constructive doubt and faith,"
further describing the phrase as "faithful doubt"—a curious (if not
contradictory) statement for some believers. Phenix proposes this
description based upon "Tillich's reformulation of Luther's doctrine of
justification by faith in a state of sin to read justification by faith in
a state of doubt."19 To put it in other terms, Phenix believes that
questioning Christians could claim "the secure foundation of the
human condition as a spiritual being" by participating in "the
faith-evidencing activity of concerned and responsible doubting."20

Using a comparative analogy, Phenix titles his second category
"destructive doubt." This educator comments that his experiences
would classify persons in the latter group as closed-minded, since they
are

essentially faithless, in the sense that they
presuppose the futility of any sustained quest for truth. . . .
Abandoning the search for ultimate certainties, the skeptic unwittingly
cuts the ground from under serious inquiry itself, thus discrediting
even his own activity of doubting.21

TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

It goes without saying that liberal believers would regard doubt as a
more natural and acceptable phenomenon, whereas extremely
conservative Christians seem to brand all doubt as wrong. More than mere
suspicion, however, this statement has been documented by certain research
findings. For instance, Hugh Alien studied more than three hundred college
undergraduates, trying to determine (among other concerns) what
correlation might exist between individual doubts and participation in
religious activities. He discovered that collegiates of more conservative
denominations (in his study, this included Methodists and Baptists)
generally experienced more disruptive consequences of doubting than their
counterparts in liberal denominations who questioned their faith. One
of the more sobering conclusions Alien reached included evidence that even
following a battle with doubt, faith struggles failed to dissipate.

Methodists and Baptists who have resolved their
doubts, however, do not return to the extremely high role of attendance
shown by those who have never doubled. This leads to the conclusion that
among the conservative denominations, doubt represents more of a
departure from the religious denomination. Resolving the doubt is not
sufficient to restore his habits of attendance.22

Sometimes it boils down to the fact that certain fellowships
simply ostracize those who have struggled with doubts, like those who have
been divorced or those who have suffered some paralyzing illness or
handicap. Believers often do not know how to respond in a facilitating
manner. A young man recently wrote to me about doubt . and concluded:
"Many Christians avoid this topic like the , plague, fearing it will
somehow infect and conquer them."

In a similar vein, one young woman corresponded that she perceived the
church was weighed down and "burdened with doubts." Yet, ironically, she
had learned that it was foolhardy to generally expect any assistance from
the Body of Christ. Her frank assessment is bone-chilling: "It is just
about the worst place in the world for someone hurting. I got kinder
responses from bar keepers."

One school of thought stresses: any doubt is compatible with faith.
Some proponents would say that, like water combined with oil, any
rationalization (which often leads to doubt) mixed with belief is totally
antithetical to faith--is totally unacceptable. For them, it would seem
that "religious commitment must transcend categories of ~ rational
justification if it is not to be undermined by the criticism which is the
obverse of such justification."23

This rationale is further explained by Helfaer, who states that right
wing theology "rejects doubt partly for ! the very reason that doubt
represents open interchange between the individual and his world and a
change in conception of the world in the direction of expanding its
contents and meanings in the light of experience."24

On the other side of the coin, there stands a second school of thought
that emphasizes: doubts are not only compatible with faith but are
actually imperative for faith to grow. One existentialist subgroup of this
belief focuses on (be individual and his or her particular religious
commitment. As a primary spokesman for this position, theologian Paul
Tillich summarizes: "Existential doubt and faith are poles of the same
reality, the stale of ultimate ' concern. . . . Serious doubt is
confirmation of faith."25

In comparison with the first school of thought (which favors a more
dualistic view of reality concerning faith and reason), religious
existentialism partially bases its perspective on man's finiteness.
Tillich explains: "Finitude includes doubt. . . . It is an expression of
the acceptance of his [man's] finitude that he accepts the fact that doubt
belongs to his essential being. . . . Doubt is not the opposite of faith;
it is an element of faith."26

Another subgroup valuing the compatibility of faith and human inquiry
would also emphasize a more rationalistic stance for beliefs. Yet,
they would not be branded as existentialists, by any means. In fact, many
proponents would hold to a conservative theology. Virtually
everyone in this ideological camp adheres to the following summative
declaration: "Questioning my beliefs and even doubting their truth need
not necessarily weaken my commitment."27 The mature believer, from this
vantage point, uses his or her renewed mind but does not foolishly abandon
the tenets of faith for every minute question. To paraphrase Cardinal
Newman's saying, even ten thousand faith struggles do not justify giving
up on a belief, if you have nothing better to replace it.28 For
example, Towns speaks about a missionary who may doubt God's work in
his life because of some misfortune or unanswered prayer. Rather than
a response of faith denial, Towns suggests that the root cause may stem
from this worker's ignorance of the true meaning of the life of faith. As
an evangelical, Towns admits that rationalism cannot provide the final
answer for believers. Yet Towns observes that faith struggles can often be
helped by clear and logical thinking. In chorus, he shares the same tune
as the religious existentialist (though from a markedly different
theological position) when he summarizes, "Doubt comes when we do not know
all of the answers."29

Tennyson put it this way: "There lives more faith in honest
doubt,/Believe me, than in half the creeds."

In summary, (hen, rationalization and doubt are typically viewed as
part and parcel of faith development--or they are not.

DIFFERENTIATING TERMS

One way to better comprehend (he nature of doubt is (o further study
the essence of faith through its various descriptions. In his helpful book
Religion and Doubt: Toward a Faith of Your Own Richard R. Creel
provides a provocative comparison between four terms that arc often
used synonymously to describe religious commitment. The distinctions
Creel employs are helpful in clarifying the subject of doubt.

The first synonym Creel discusses is the word knowledge. He describes
this term as a claim held to be "absolutely and demonstrably true."30
Consequently, this religious conviction can be "proved" to anyone who is
intelligent and unbiased enough to consider the evidence. For this
first category, Creel offers the example of the Roman Catholic church's
position regarding the certainty of God's existence (derived from the
five proofs of Aquinas in the thirteenth century).

The second synonym Creel discusses is the term belief. Likewise
based upon supportive evidence (though difficult to "prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt"), this category of religious commitment can be described as
"the most plausible explanation of the nature of reality." Creel further
explains, "In other words, given the evidence presently at hand, you
believe that your religion is more likely the true explanation of reality
than any other explanation with which you are familiar."" The pivotal
issue here is that religious commitment is based upon the highest
probability of alternative views.

Faith represents the third category of religious terminology,
defined as emotional confidence. From this perspective there are

feelings of confidence which normally accompany
knowledge, bill with regard to proposal ions about which you are neither
rationally certain nor empirically confident, since yon do not believe
that you have either reasons which prove- them true or evidence which
shows that they arc probably true.32

Creel claims that the term faith is not the consequence of an
exerted will or intentional reasoning--it just "happens."

The fourth and final synonym used to describe religious commitment
is hope. Distinguishing this stance from the earlier trio of options,
Creel says: "You would not be claiming it to be true or logical on
empirical grounds; nor would you be claiming to feel as though it is
true."33 On a more positive note, he concludes, "You would be claiming
only that you hope it is true and that you believe that there is a
possibility that it is true."34

The summary chart on the following page (adapted from Creel) contrasts
these four alternative descriptions of religious commitment. In addition,
the diagram cites areas that would tend to cause doubt in each case.

As Creel has pointed out, the dotted line on the chart indicates the
degree to which human reason is utilized. That is, the first two
categories assume that reason can be employed to identify ultimate
reality. The latter two categories have little use for reason, relying
more on emotion.

It should he noted at this juncture that we authors do not strictly
adhere to Creel's four-part categorization. A major concern of ours, for
instance, is that faith and doubt should not be viewed dualistically by
separating rational from emotional categories. Also, some of his
interpretations would be questionable in our minds. However,
Creel's contribution indicates that he has seriously grappled with the
what of doubt. He has attempted to isolate the many words we use as
synonyms and to become more discerning in conceptualization and
communication.

Alternative

Basis

Tendency Toward
Doubt

Knowledge
(Rational
Certainty)

Proof

Fallacy in
Logic

Belief
(Empirical
Confidence)

Probability

Conflicting
Evidence

Faith
(Emotional
Confidence)

Feeling

Changing
Emotions

Hope
(Emotional
Desire)

Attractiveness

Differing
Perceptions

Fluctuation between human reason and emotion as the primary source or
basis for religious commitment was verified in the 1985 Gallup study. When
respondents were asked, "Would you describe the change [in your faith]
mostly as coming about as a result, of a lot of thought and discussion
about faith or coming about as a result of a strong emotional experience?"
they were about equally divided in their responses. Forty-six percent
of the national group chose the first phrase, and 49 percent identified
with the second. There was no appreciable difference between all
males (48 percent to 40 percent, respectively, in these two categories)
and all females (45 percent to 50 percent, respectively). However,
education did appear to be a factor. Among all college graduates, 61
percent chose the rational component, compared with '34 percent for the
emotional component, whereas 41 percent of high school graduates selected
the former category and 53 percent opted for the latter category.35

"when? where? why?"
considering potential causes of doubt

When does doubt occur?

In the 1985 Gallup survey, nearly six out often persons (39
percent) reported that a change in their faith came during a stable time
of life, whereas 40 percent , said that faith change arose during
turbulent, chaotic periods.'" Also, based upon the 71 percent who claimed
to have had a significant faith change, 18 percent recalled that
their experience came when they were eighteen 1o twenty-four y nil's
of age (I he age I > nickel wild I he highest recorded percentage). In
descending order, other age periods included the following: 9 percent who
cited a faith change when they were twenty-five to twenty-nine years of
age, 7 percent who pointed to such a change identified the years when they
were sixteen to seventeen years of age, and 6 percent noted that the faith
change occurred when they were thirty to thirty-four years of age.

Besides age, when are doubts most likely to occur? James E. Marcia
suggests a provocative theory of older teens and younger adults, which
reflects helpful insights for this query.37 Concisely stated, Marcia poses
two primary factors determining personal identity formation.

Commitment and crisis. Commitment focuses upon the degree of allegiance
to beliefs and life values. Occupational preferences and choices are
also included. Crisis represents any meaningful decision-making
moment that facilitates commitment.

Using this duo as perpendicular axes creates a Z x Z matrix like the
one on the following page. For both the vertical and horizontal axes, the
subcategory Yes indicates actual experience. The subcategory No
points out inexperience. The combination of factors yields four options.
Marcia's theory provides the following categories and technical terms.

Crisis

No

Yes

Commitment

Yes

Identity
Diffusion

Moratorium

Foreclosure

Identity
Achievement

No

Identity diffusion means that an individual has not developed
significant values about life or held prominent vocational preferences
(i.e., no commitment). Also, no crisis has been encountered.

Moratorium indicates that the individual has confronted a
decision-making moment. Indeed, research shows that this person often
tends to be churning in the middle of crisis. Consequently, the
debilitating struggle (which may involve faith-defying experiences)
"freezes" the young person. No major commitment can be secured.

Foreclosure. This is the flip side of Moratorium. It defines a state
where beliefs and vocational decisions have been made, but they have come
without any thought-provoking crises. For example, personal convictions
here are based upon moral codes and opinions of outsiders (e.g., parents,
church leaders, and other authority figures). Extrinsically-oriented
values.

Finally, Identity and Achievement stands as Marcia's technical
term for one who has "owned" personal values. Through the refining fire of
crisis, genuine commitment is derived—intrinsic beliefs.

Adapting Marcia's research and terminology to the study of doubts, it
would appear that substantial faith questioning primarily occurs in two of
the four quadrants. "Moratorium" designates the spiritual condition of one
wrestling with the beliefs--much like the unstable person portrayed by the
apostle James: "a double-minded man." Their chaos is likened to a "wave of
the sea, blown and tossed by the wind" (James 1:6-8, KJV). No wonder value
commitment is nowhere to be found.

"Identity Achievement" typifies the second spiritual state in which
doubts normally occur. In (.his case, however, growth and stability
reign. Struggling through doubts has paradoxically strengthened this
individual. In fact, analogy can be drawn from James's opening
comments, where a rather curious spiritual equation is
introduced: "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face
trials of many kinds" (1:2), for trials test faith. Perseverance
comes, and eventually maturity results (vv. 3- 4).

An earlier research project by Marcia verifies the basic faith-doubt
implications cited above.38 At one point in his survey, the question was
raised, "Have you ever had any doubts about your religious beliefs?"
Representative responses indicated cluster themes around each of
Marcia's four categories, as the following samples suggest:

[Identity achievement] Yea, I even started wondering
whether or not there was a god. I've pretty much resolved that now,
though. The way it seems to me is ...

[Moratorium] Yes, I guess I'm going through that now. I just don't
see how there can he a god and yet so much evil in the world or ...

[Foreclosure] No, not really, our family is pretty much in agreement
on these things.

[Identity diffusion] Oh, I don't know. I guess so. Everyone goes
through some sort of state like that. But it really doesn't bother me
much. I figure one's just as good as the other!

All port highlights al least a half-do/en instances where serious
questioning of faith begins. First, reactive and negativistic doubt often
surfaces when tragedies are encountered. The foxhole prayer that goes
unanswered frequently results in militant atheism, souring any form of
religious activity.

Second, extreme egocentrism (a relentless focus on self) often brings
doubt with it. Childish expectations of faith in adulthood that are never
fully resolved may cause an individual to "discard his conceptions and
terminate once and for all his religious quest," Allport notes.
Concerning the eventual outcome of this type of doubt, Allport adds, "A
faith centered in self-advantage is bound to break up."39

Hypocrisy and failure within institutional religion induces a
third form of doubt. In particular, doubt of this sort affects young
people "who today seem supersensitive to the darker spots of religious
history." For, even after bearing the standard excuses for the church's
failure, Allport reports, doubters are still not "persuaded by the
counter-argument that crimes of persecution and bigotry are to be
charged up to secularism and corruption rather than to the religious
hypothesis in its purity."40

The fourth type of doubt parallels the seed (based upon the parable of
the Sower) that falls upon the rocky soil and is ultimately choked of its
faith-life. In the gospel story, initial joy may he compared with
"religious strivings . . . the pursuit of meanings beyond the range
of our intellectual capacity . . . the longing that, values be
conserved."41

But as the seed's eventual demise results from shallow soil, so
doubt arises in this fourth case because the shallowness of its immature
faith persists in retaining juvenile perceptions of being dependent
upon others. In contrast to this fourth doubt form, Allport observes that
"when well-formed, the mature religious sentiment develops a driving power
in its own right, motivating action, transforming character, and ordering
sub-systems of belief and conduct."42

Fifth, doubts occur because of scientific or rational scrutiny. Allport
contests that, in theory, the concept of an "open-minded scientist" (i.e.,
one who thinks exclusively in scientific and rationalistic
structures) is merely an illusion. "In playing the game of science, a
definite set of axioms must be adopted. They include, first and
foremost, the principle of determinism." "Identical happenings," he
continues, "with identical histories, will have identical futures. There
can be no intervention of Providence, . . . The axiom of
determination must always be held; otherwise the game of science, as now
conceived, cannot be played."43 In other words, a world view that
presupposes the superiority of scientific discovery and human reason (to
the exclusion of supernatural reality) is potentially doomed to suffer
doubt—since the glue that holds together life's puzzle has been discarded.

The sixth and last form of faith questioning that All-port suggests
merely reflects a watered down version of the previous category—a generic
brand of doubt, so to speak, for the nonprofessional "scientist."
Typically this mind-set is claimed to be a natural, or realist, view of
life. Allport describes its consequence as "the commonest mode of
doubting."44

A young woman was sharing a few of her personal doubts with me, when I
asked, "What advice would you give to a believer who was doubting?"
Characterizing Allport's sixth category, she confidently stated, "Helax,
God is in control." But. then, without pausing, she qualified her advice:
"And if He's not, we're in the wrong business!" She demonstrated faith
mingled with realistic questions.

Specifically, Allport notes that the strife in this final category
comes when particular tenets of religious teaching are pilled against
so-called acceptable standards of evidence. Traditional stumbling blocks
in our twentieth century age of enlightenment, for instance, include the
rejection of both a literal fiery hell and a heaven with golden streets,
he states. Allport recommends that in such cases appropriate literary
interpretation and contextualization are often overlooked by doubters, as
he illustrates: "The Bible affirms, 'There is no God/ but adds, 'says
the fool in his heart.' Even the Fundamentalist must take the context into
account."45

Why Does Doubt Occur?

The following section addresses the third divisional question (which
may have causal significance) by using a trio of subtopics: (1) genetic
factors affecting doubt, (2) genetic and environmental factors affecting
doubt, and (3) specific reasons for doubt. Moving from general to more
particular issues, (his section will catch a birds'-eye glimpse of human
development theory as well as theories specifically confronting origins of
religious doubt.

Genetic factors affecting doubt. When a comprehensive meaning of
the word doubt is stressed, many relevant theorists in the field of
human development would claim that doubt naturally arises from within
people. Likewise they would tend to argue that such predilection to doubt
represents a singular--and inherited--component of holistic growth. That
is, just as it is expected that certain physiological and psychological
changes will occur within every individual throughout all of life,
the process of lifelong doubt, is recognized as one more natural
phenomenon of human maturation. Also, just as individual distinctions
are expected within other basic human growth patterns, wide-ranging
experiences of doubt, are anticipated to differ from person to person.

Four areas of general human development must be considered as relevant
to the subject of doubt.

1. Cognitive (or intellectual) development represents a foundational
topic pertaining to faith and doubt formation. Jean Piaget, the famous
Swiss-born psychologist, is said to have fashioned the modern-day approach
to this discipline. Simply put, Piaget perceived that cognitive growth
proceeds through a series of four stages; each new state is qualitatively
distinct from the prior stage, as indicated below:

Stage 1: Sensory-motor intelligence (from 0 to 2 years of
age)
The infant's intellectual condition is primarily
demonstrated through behavioral ("motor") activity. This involves
bodily movements and sensory expressions (e.g., touching, hearing,
etc.).

Stage 2: Preoperational thought (2 to 7 years)
Language skills
characterize this growth period. No longer restricted to behavioral
motor activity, the young child becomes increasingly able to think
(though in semi-logical patterns).

Stage 3: Concrete operations (7 to 11 years)
Logical and rational
thinking distinguishes the early school-age child from his younger
counterpart. He is limited to "concrete" (actual or real) applications
of new-found skill—being unable to think hypothetically.

Stage 4: Formal operation!; (11 to 15 years)
Theoretically, the
older child and young teen are capable of moving beyond actual
objects of thought to abstract objects. This ability to hypothesize
allows them to contemplate life beyond the realm of their own
experiences.46

Within all four of these stages, several complex processes of
cognitive growth are operating. Five basic concepts, in particular, need
to be understood to further comprehend Piagel's theory. Schema refers to
the intellectual structures that people use to categorize life
experiences according to common characteristics. For example, if a
young child regularly calls all cats "dogs," perhaps his schema would
reveal that both cab and dogs are perceived by him lo be friendly, furry,
four-legged creatures. Adults, of course, would have more discerning
schemata, based upon their latter stage development and personal
experiences.

Assimilation defines the intellectual procedure whereby a person
incorporates new perceptions into current, existing schemata. Using the
illustration above, consider what might happen when the same child
encounters for the first time a caged lion at a zoo. If the child
replies "dog" when he is asked the creature's name, that would indicate
that his earlier schema has not been altered--simply one more animal has
has been added to it.

Accommodation represents the cognitive process that recognizes that
former, existing schemata no longer adequately classify and categorize
life experiences. Two options are open here. Using the above case to
illustrate, either the child will need (1) to create a new schema (for
example, recognizing that the lion is anything I it friendly, he may
create a new cognitive category of 'features that includes animals that
are both unfriendly and large) or (2) to modify existing schemata in order
to account for new experiences (for example, realizing that i le lion is
unfriendly, the young child might reduce the characteristic of "dogs" to
just furry and four-legged creatures). Both options are examples of
accommodation.

Disequilibrium, the fourth of five basic concepts within cognitive
studies, has particular significance for Piaget's theory and for the
subject of doubt. When life experiences are not easily assimilated, they
result in the tension of disequilibrium--an imbalance or instability of
cognition. Barry J. Wadsworth, one of the interpreters of Piaget,
concludes that "disequilibrium (a problem), always leads to active
efforts to assimilate and accommodate. Disequilibrium is Piaget's primary
explanatory concept of motivation."47

It may already be apparent to the reader how disequilibrium thus
relates to the matter of doubt. As in the area of cognitive growth,
disequilibrium may produce doubt, since it is necessary to regularly
reassess current perceptions and beliefs about life. An example would be
the first time a young Christian teen encounters the view that God really
does not exist. That experience--what may or may not be a traumatic
one--will motivate him to confront his cognitive (and faith) imbalance.

Equilibrium identifies a balance between assimilation and accommodation
processes. Such a balance is necessary because neither extreme is healthy,
too much assimilation (with little or no accommodation) would yield a
few—but very large—schemata, since similarity is stressed, whereas too
much accommodation (with little or no assimilation) would bring about a
cumbersome number of very minute schemata, since dissimilarity is
emphasized. The weakness of the former would be a person's inability to
discern or differentiate his particular experiences, and the weakness of
the latter would be the inability to group his experiences by common,
larger categories of reality.

2. The second area of maturity--affective (or emotional)
development--should not be so disconnected with cognitive growth that a
dualistic view of people is generated; yet emotional development does
represent a discrete domain of the human maturational process that
must be considered separately regarding faith and doubt formation.
Emotion, just like intellect, has the potential to contribute to total
human growth. Likewise both have the capacity to elicit nonproductive (or
counterproductive) consequences for growth. For instance, one study
shows that two major types of cognitive-emotional misdirection have
been identified in children. Such experiences in childhood often
yield fearful and anxious results—doubt being just one.48 The first type
has been called "errors of inference," further defined as "predictions or
conclusions that falsely represent reality."49 Several illogical processes
(including overgeneralization) prompt this condition. One example would be
for a child who has recently lost his pet bird in death to conclude,
"God must not like me very much."

The second type of cognitive-emotional misdirection incorporates two
parts: "ego anxiety," or worry pertaining to one's self (e.g., "I must do
well in the Sunday school contest, so my teacher will think I really love
Jesus"); and "discomfort anxiety," or worry pertaining to the notion that
only personal discomfort is threatening (e.g., "It would ho just awful if
I lost the Sunday school contest").50

But children are certainly not the only people who are controlled by
such cognitive-emotional misdirection. Helfaer refers to one of his
clients who was suffering from doubt through an exhibition of this
identical behavior:

He gives reality a very specific interpretation and
uncritically suspends an openness to the possibility of other
interpretations. On occasion he explicitly insists on his own
interpretation regardless of an awareness of evidence that might
contradict it. . . .That is, the feeling of tightness about a belief is
accepted, without further criticism, as an indication of the truth of
that belief. . . . The feeling of truth and reality, are higher-criteria
for belief than the critical evaluation of reason. In this way faith is
projected from intellectual doubt and reality-testing in
general.51

In some ways, these demonstrations of emotional one-sidedness reflect
the opposite human condition of the earlier-described condition of extreme
scientific rationalism.

3. Moral development (from certain angles, an extension of the two
previous areas of human growth, especially cognitive theory) has been
brought to the public's attention largely due to the research of Harvard's
Lawrence Kohlberg. His theory, like Piaget's, stresses sequential,
hierarchical stages of development. In fact, since his research focuses
more upon the rationale that people offer for their actions (vs. their
actual moral behavior itself), the link with cognitive theory is
extremely significant. An overview of Kohlberg's theory below reveals
his three primary levels, each of which contains two stages.

"Preconventional" level--At this first, juncture of
moral maturity, the individual responds to cultural rules which are
enforced by those who exercise physical power. Specifically, the focus
of attention is "self," since the person is motivated by what will
reduce personal punishment and gain personal reward.

Stage 1: "Punishment and obedience orientation"--The physical results
of behavior determine its goodness or badness. Being "good"
characterizes avoidance of punishment ms well as positive recognition
for accomplishment.

Stage 2: "Instrumental relativist orientation"--Needs of others are
given token attention, since moral behavior is somewhat
reciprocal—but only by using the standard "you scratch my hack and
I'll scratch yours."

"Conventional" level--The focus of attention and the source of
motivation shifts from self to "others." The range of this
others-orientation spans from family to friends to society.

Stage 3: "Good boy-nice girl orientation"--Goodness is now determined
by a series of "informal" rules, whereby others are pleased or helped
through personal behavior, and thus, they offer their approval.

Stage 4: "Law and order orientation"--More "formal" laws define
morality (e.g., performing one's national or civic duty).

"Postconventional" level--Moral values based upon "principles"--apart
from personal gain or group conformity—frame the distinction of this
final level.

Stage 5: "Social-contract, legalistic orientation"--Right behavior
tends to be based upon general individual rights which society has
established. Procedural rules are sought through group consensus.

Stage 6: "Universal ethical principle orientation"--Self-ascribed
ethical principles (based upon conscience) form the primary focus.
Further emphasis centers upon a lifestyle congruent with such
principles. Abstractness of moral code (e.g., the Golden Rule) is
favored over concreteness (e.g., the Ten Commandments).52

Through a brief analysis, it may become apparent that several
cross-references In the subject of doubt are potentially expressed in
Kohlberg's theory. For instance, reconsider the three primary foci of each
distinct level above (i.e., a focus on self, others, and principles,
respectively). At the first level, the existence of Clod might be
questioned by individuals when their mechanical and egocentric view of
faith is not consistently satisfied (e.g., when the false dictum "Good
people should never suffer" is violated). At the second level, God's love
may be doubted when an individual is treated disloyally by a trusted
family member or good friend. Al the third level, disillusionment with
Clod's divine order may occur either when faith is lost in the consensus
process or when an individual experiences the turmoil of conflicting
principles within the conscience.

4. Faith or spiritual development covers a broadly defined area of
human growth, not simply the traditional topics of the Judeo-Christian
heritage. James W. Fowler of Emory University stands as one of the
prominent leaders in this field. Like Kohlberg, Fowler's position reveals
definite ties with Piaget's cognitive theory, yet warrants a distinctive
discipline all its own."53

Perhaps one of the most intriguing illustrations of Fowler's allegiance
with cognitive-philosophical systems comes from his reference to the
potential faith struggle that children have when they enter Piaget's first
growth stage. (In review, the last cognitive stage is formal
operations, often commencing in the preteen years; it provides the
capacity to hypothesize—to mentally play with the abstract world of
thought.) Referring to the older child's newly acclaimed ability to
reorganize his perception of faith, Fowler comments, "This construction
frequently gives way during a phase we have come to call eleven-year-old
atheism" (emphasis added).54 Such questioning of their earlier-perceived
notions of God must, again, be partially understood within the context of
their cognitive, emotional, and social maturation, as Fowler further
explains:

This phase comes when thoughtful children whose
religious and social environments have given them sufficient
emotional space to question and reckon for themselves begin to come to
terms with the fact that ours is not a "quick-pay-off universe." The
good do not always get rewarded; the wicked are not always
punished.55

By way of critiquing Fowler's explanation, someone might be quick to
conclude, "If the environment that allowed the child to question his
dissonant perceptions had been absent, the reassessment of the child's
traditional faith would not have occurred." Although this may
initially look like an accurate observation, it is actually shortsighted;
for it must be fully stressed that research indicates such an
environmental void would have merely meant postponement of--not escape
from--inevitable faith struggles later in life. In the case of such
postponement, faith development tends to be dwarfed by other areas of
human growth--on imbalance that may produce devastating consequences, as
Fowler observes:

In fact, we see a fair number of persons--usually men
--who may exhibit considerable cognitive sophistication in their
occupational worlds (as physicians or engineers, for example) bill
who in their emotional and faith lives are rather rigidly embedded in
the structures of Mythic-Literal faith and imperial selfhood. To
their marriages and family life they bring a rigidity--often coupled
with authoritarian patterns--that inflicts psychic and sometimes
physical violence on their partners and children. It often leads them to
a kind of baffled bereftness in their forties and fifties, when in the
shambles of their shattered families, for the first time they may begin
the painful task of learning about the interior lives of
selves--starting with their own.56

Helfaer, in his own studies on doubt, verifies this noteworthy find of
Fowler's. Selecting one man from his research who particularly failed to
mature in his child-hood faith, Helfaer outlines grievous patterns of
doubt that were subsequently suffered in adulthood.

The old faith, the earlier religious sublimations, could
not possibly do the psychological work needed to contain these
inner and miter threats. Since it could not provide the protection of
faith, it was doubted. It is possible that the inner tension that
precipitated his conversion when he was eight was the same form of
anxiety that later became expressed, first in his early
teens.57

Later in his text, Helfaer offers further insight into this specific
case study: "The inability to re-evaluate the world view of childhood and
the childhood premises upon which conflicts were resolved and the sense of
self established may he considered a form of doubt."58

These findings within the faith development research once again address
the complexity and interrelated features of human growth. In particular,
doubts--too long relegated to isolated tidbits of religious life--have now
been documented to permeate all avenues of human existence: how we think,
how we feel about ourselves, how we relate to others, and how we resolve
the conflict of perceptual dissonance represent but a few correlations
with faith struggles. The issue, then, becomes not so much whether to
confront doubt, but when to address it, as Fowler summarizes, "At
thirteen, when it comes much more naturally and painlessly, or at
fifty-throe, when it comes out of the agony of broken relationships."59

Texas Tech's Mark 0. Webb offers a helpful perspective at this point,
since he readily acknowledges parallels between faith development and
other domains of human growth. But he also cautions against overlooking
dissimilarities. For example, Webb likens doubt to "an internal warning"
system, observing that one common motivation of mankind is somehow to
maintain a state of equilibrium. (Thus, the correlated theories of Piaget,
Festinger, and others provide invaluable resources.) However, Webb refuses
to neglect doubt's peculiar condition. He contrasts what he calls
religious experience and "normal doubt-resolution," which, he says,
includes questions arising from secular and scientific
investigations. Webb submits that the latter category of
questioning permits objective evidence to be gathered and a choice
between two alternatives to be made, whereas the former category, he
claims, does not permit such convenience of scientific evaluation, given
the nature of faith.

This dualistic distinction seems somewhat contrived. Nothing is
mentioned, for instance, of the subjective presumptions of scientific
methods and tasks earlier noted by Allport. Nevertheless, Webb's
contribution here arises from his insight that religious doubt does pose a
particular problem, since oftentimes the core issue of religious
doubt "is not subject to normal empirical modes of inquiry."60 Ranging far
beyond such restrictive forms of scientific investigation, metaphysical
questions (concerning the reality of a personal God and His handiwork)
typically lie at the base of faith questioning. Webb concludes: "No method
of resolving the doubt presents itself, since these things cannot be
investigated by looking at the world. Consequently, the doubt remains,
growing in intensity over time." Recalling that an equilibrated human
condition is naturally sought, Webb observes that "a radical readjustment
of the whole belief system takes place under the pressure of persistent
doubt. That is why we have intense religious experiences, but only rarely
do we have intense scientific experiences."61

Genetic and environmental factors affecting doubt. Building upon this
single influence of heredity, many developmental theorists directly or
indirectly agree with the assertion that "doubt" naturally arises from the
combination of inherited traits, self-percept ion and social
interaction. Erik II. Erikson perhaps best represents a prominent figure
who values these complementary factors of personal and environmental
features. Consequently, a brief summary of Erikson's theory will be
presented--especially emphasizing his theory's first half, which
discusses children and youth. Ramifications will be drawn for the
subject of doubt.

First, it is important to note that Erikson modifies and expands
Sigmund Freud's five stages of psychosexual theory, in offering his eight
stages of psychosocial theory. In further contrast to Freud (who primarily
concentrated on birth through adolescence) Erikson postulates a
life-span view for the total age range of human growth. Erikson believes
that individuals develop healthily when particular life challenges of each
stage are successfully negotiated. In order to value the dynamics of
life, each of his eight stages is intentionally framed by a set of
polarities (or tensions) highlighting particular life challenges. Also,
based upon his research, Erikson includes a synthesizing virtue for every
one of his stages. Erikson's theory of eight stages is presented below
through a sequencing of four major periods of life.62

1. Early childhood. Erikson's first stage pitted the tension of "Trust
versus Mistrust" (from birth to approximately eighteen months). Here,
the infant is challenged by the need to trust others when private needs
(e.g., hunger) are met. Conversely, distrust results when uncertainty
and anxiety arise, as private needs go unattended. Erikson further
describes the negative side of this stage as "that 'double take' which we
call doubt--doubt in himself and doubt in the firmness and perspicacity of
his trainers."63 The virtue that is anticipated in the resolution of
this tension is a new condition called "hope."

Stage 2 (from eighteen months to three years of age) highlights the
challenge of "Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt." Positive resolution of
this tension should yield self-worth and the virtue of "will," as the
child's environment supports self-insistence. Erikson rephrases this
polarity as a struggle "between self-expression and compulsive
self-restraint or meek compliance. . . . From an unavoidable sense of loss
of self-control and of parental over control comes a lasting propensity
for doubt and shame."64 Implications for religious doubt can be
projected from Erikson's additional commentary on self assessment:
"This basic sense of doubt... is the model for the habitual 'double take'
or other later and more verbal forms of compulsive doubting."65

"Initiative versus Guilt" designates the third stage of psychosocial
theory, incorporating ages three to six. The focus is on creating and
instigating individual activities, leading to virtues of "purpose" and
accomplishment. Fear of punishment or guilt stands at the opposite pole
and is experienced as the young child is overcome by potential
failure (even perceived failure) from such self-initiated activities.

2. School-age childhood. As the young child enters school, the start of
Erikson's fourth stage, two major changes are experienced within a matter
of years. First, a radical shift in social activities occurs. Prior to
school age, peer interaction—particularly in larger groups—was minimal
(excluding preschool or daycare experiences). During school age,
approximately one-half of the child's waking hours are spent with other
small children. This shift in social interaction will be challenged by the
ideas, needs, and demands of his peers. Wadsworth summarizes: "Social
behavior, by its very nature, is an important source of disequilibrium,
doming to look al something from another's viewpoint, questioning one's
reasoning, and seeking validation from others are all essentially acts of
accommodation."66

The age-relevant need here, among others, is to seek recognition and
approval of others (for the first, time on a broader scale). In fact, in
simple terms, the research that discovered this need led Erikson to
the conclusion that children proceed with self-evaluation (who they
are), based upon self-accomplishment (what (hey do). He officially labels
this fourth stage "Industry versus Inferiority," for six-year olds up
through the start of puberty. Industry translates into comprehending
the value of work as well as the attainment of technological skills.

Positive self-images, therefore, are constructed when schoolchildren
feel good about the social support they receive for individual
achievement. Conversely, they sense inferior attitudes when they
experience self-defeating frustration and failure in their work.
"Competence" is the intended virtue of resolution in this fourth
stage crisis.

Besides the radical shift in the degree of social interaction, the
second major change in school-age children comes as they develop the
ability to think logically and rationally (Piaget's third of four stages).
Contrasting their earlier preschool cognitive competencies, Chandler
notes,

So long as meanings were imagined to he features of
objects rather than subjects, it was easy enough to suppose that the
facts would remain the same regardless of who was in the business of
collecting them. As meanings come to be understood as mental products
that are actively manufactured rather than harvested as natural
resources, however, the idea of absolute truth is emptied of much of its
earlier significance, and the companion notion of objectivity
deteriorates [emphasis added].67

In other words, certain specific doubts will arise in the school-age
child simply because of the cognitive movement from semi-logical to
logical thinking. (That is precisely what had happened to my daughter
Melissa, in the introductory story about her personal doubts.)
Chandler has stated that this doubting process may have snowballing
consequences. Using quite a vivid illustration, he concludes: "The
effect of pulling on this small thread of insight is to eventually unravel
the whole epistemic [i.e., nature of knowing] fabric of middle
childhood."68

3. Adolescence. The potential for destructive, self-critical thinking
continues when puberty is reached. Erikson calls this "a transitory total
self-doubt."69 One hopeful sign and recent finding for this period,
however, may indicate that, such self-doubt decreases as "adolescents
become increasingly certain of the traits and characteristics they
attribute to themselves. [It involves] a gradual consolidation of
self-evaluations."70 Regardless, doubt does advance to a new challenge,
for young teenagers typically move into Piaget's fourth and final stage of
formal operations (i.e., the ability to think abstractly and
hypothesize). At (he same (hue, they have entered Erikson's fifth stage,
"Identify versus Hole Confusion"--the stage holding "fidelity" as its
anticipated virtue in resolution. That is, as the early teen begins to
understand who he or she is, the teen continues to experiment with a
variety of potential roles in order to fine tune identity. If psychosocial
pressures and demands override a positive comprehension of
self-in-the-world, confusion and despair reign in the teen years. Chandler
depicts the multi-faceted struggles of adolescence in this
manner:

The price of all this new-found uncertainly is generic
doubt, not the kind of mundane, case-specific doubt of middle childhood,
but a wholesale, transcendental kind of doubt that threatens to
annihilate the whole of one's system of beliefs. . . . What are novel to
I he adolescent period are those more unassuageable, universal doubts
that have their roots in the remote conjectural possibility of
hypothetical error. . . . Discovering some route around this
impasse, some means of recovering an acceptable epistemological footing
in an essentially uncertain world, it would be argued, is a primary
developmental task of the adolescent period.71

This "generic doubt" is elsewhere described as the "recognition of the
universality of subjectivity,"72 and for conservative Christians a totally
relative world view is neither acceptable nor reassuring, Employing a
horribly graphic metaphor for this age period, Chandler defines such
cognitive (and faith) turmoil as a time when "acquired knowledge is
the epistemological equivalent of a bullet in the brain."73 To make
matters worse, Chandler adds that his studies reveal that normative,
adolescent reaction to these stressful times yields one of two
outcomes: "either a blind dogmatic faith or a know-nothing
skepticism."74 Certainly, more than those two options exist, but
Chandler's summative remarks, nevertheless, provide a startling commentary
of youth who are overwhelmed by doubt.

4. Adulthood. Particularly recounting the second stage of "Autonomy
versus Shame and Doubt," Erikson observes that adult faith questioning
will be influenced by the degree of successful stage negotiation during
early childhood maturation. Developmentally stated, Erikson asserts that
the child's potential for "this basic sense of doubt. . . finds its adult
expression in paranoiac fears."75 For the believer, Helfaer provides a
helpful correlation between Erikson's theory and spiritual development,
saying that "basic mistrust, shame and doubt, arid guilt can all be given
symbolic expression in the terms of religious belief."76 An
additional example of this connectedness includes the fact that one
of the underlying themes of Erikson's research on Martin Luther was that
(lie Reformer's attempt to assess mid affirm his own faith was based
upon his experienced trust in early infancy."

In brief, the three adult psychosocial stages of Erikson are: Stage 6,
"Intimacy versus Isolation," when younger adults seek serious commitments
with others or withdraw socially, becoming self-absorbed; Stage 7,
"Generativity versus Stagnation," where middle adults attempt to care for
the next generation or continue in further forms of isolation, through
self-indulgence; and Stage 8, "Ego Integrity versus Despair," as older
adults review and accept their life accomplishments or become depressed
and anxious over disapproving self-evaluations of life (virtues
include "love," "care," and "wisdom," respectively). To follow through on
the comparison Helfaer made, during any one of these three adult stages
the potential for storing up or breaking down faith is possible.

Specific reasons for doubt. The third of three subtopics that confront
the issue, Why does doubt occur? focuses on more particular matters
of religious doubt (over against the generic doubt of the human
condition).

A handful of studies have been conducted among those who suffer from
religious doubt. From preliminary glances at such research, there exists
no rhyme or reason for the causal source of spiritually disenchanted
persons. For example, in Helfaer's studies alone, just a few of the
complementary influences associated with doubt range from low
self-esteem78 to a lack of repentance,79 and from the specific pressures
of seminary training80 to diverse personality orientations toward faith
and doubt.81 The safest conclusion to draw seems to be that we can
identify correlations with doubt. We cannot be as certain about
cause-effect formulas.

Maintaining a sensitivity for these findings, five broad categories
were synthesized from religious literature as a response to the query,
"Why?" These categories are not meant to be exhaustive but instead to be
representative of doubt's possible origins (acknowledging that the
"chicken or egg" controversy may be legitimately raised for each of these
five categories).

1. Unstable home life. Several researchers have suggested that an
unhealthy home environment contributes to potential doubt among its
family membership.82 Allport offers one overarching evaluation of home
conditions, as it pertains to faith struggles:

If, as Freud has said, the religious sentiment is at
bottom as an extension of one's attitude toward one's physical father,
then we would expect repressed animosity toward this father on occasion
to be reflected in a hatred of religion. . . . Probably the truest
statement would be that on occasion—probably not often--both belief and
doubt may reflect unconsciously one's attitude toward one's
parent.83

Helfaer's studies affirm evidence of counterproductive home life
in his research on doubt. Specifically, Indies an example of one
doubter's immature mother, who regularly expressed strong jealousy toward
the father.84 Moreover, Helfaer states that the irresponsible behavior of
this doubter's father, in part, precipitated religious questioning in the
son.85 To complicate an already unstable parental situation, this
doubter confesses that his family was uprooted and moved forty times!86

Consider the broader issue of related emotional and psychological
trauma arising from the home life. Albert Ellis and Michael Bernard note
that whereas it is a myth that "parents are always to blame" for their
children's maladjusted condition, "it appears that parents as role models
and reinforcing-punishing agents play a major part in preventing,
minimizing, or exacerbating emotional and behavioral problems in their
children."87 In this context, Russell M. Grieger and John D. Boyd point
out a dozen faulty parenting styles that tend to promote
emotional-behavioral problems in their children.88

2. Unhealthy religious character. Certain studies show that one
significant element of religious life contrasts individuals
possessing extrinsic orientation (that is, people who believe because of
social group expectations and/or external reward) with those motivated by
intrinsic orientation (that is, people who believe because of personal
conviction, regardless of external influence). Using this factor, research
indicates that usually individuals who are extrinsically motivated
are significantly more prejudiced and rigid in their belief system than
the intrinsically motivated.89 In a similar vein, it appears that
individuals who are dominated by an external locus of control (that is,
they favor the authority and viewpoints of particular people over their
own) typically cling to more irrational beliefs than individuals
characterized by an internal locus of control.90

Using three standardized testing scales, it was discovered also
"that a person who endorses irrational beliefs will tend to be dogmatic
and also (end to he religious for reasons of social support and external
reinforcement."91 Of these two components (that is, dogmatism and
extrinsic religious orientation), dogmatism was found to be "nearly twice
as important in predicting" irrationality when compared to the combination
of these two components.'" In this light, Chandler researched
adolescents who were "especially susceptible to dogmatic
conversion"'1' and noted comparisons between their faith
struggles and their newfound cognitive capacity to hypothesize (as
well as to doubt). Chandler summarizes his findings by saying that one of
his more provocative discoveries was that "such dogmatic views are
parasitic upon doubt and carry skepticism as their secret sharer."94
In short, dogmatism and extrinsically oriented faith simply set people up
for an imminent ambush with doubt.

Francis Bacon summarizes this truism when he observes: "If a man will
begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content
to begin with doubts; he shall end in certainties."

3. Extreme personality types. Additional research indicates that
certain kinds of persons may be more prone to faith questioning than other
individuals. A sampling of two of those personality types are discussed
below.

"Low-Integration" and "High-Integration" types refer to the
extreme cognitive capacities to assimilate and/or accommodate life
experiences. In studies conducted by Schroder, Driver, and Steufert, a
quartet of cognitive levels were discovered,95 including the following:

1. Low Complexity Integration—The category for people with
mutually-restrictive, black-and-white categories of perception. Here,
absolute descriptions such as "all" or "none" are often used to explain
life.

2. Moderate Complexity Integration—The category representing "a
movement away from absolutism.... Because of the availability of
alternate schemata, 'right' and 'wrong' are not [as] fixed."96 "Black
and white" views of life are not as acceptable.

3. Moderately High Complexity--Persons possessing the ability to
"vary combinations of alternate schemata. A person ... can
simultaneously weigh the effects of taking different views."97 By way of
comparison, this third category of life perceptions demonstrates less
frequent compartmentalizations of reality.

4. High Complexity Individuals who typically use "alternate complex
combinations [to] provide the potential for relating and comparing
different systems of interacting variables [and] the possibility of
highly abstract function."98 In other words, there is both the ability
and the desire on the part of these persons to value paradoxes in life.

It appears that for those associated with either of the above two
extreme categories, potential for doubt would be greatest. In the first
extreme, the categorical "either or" mind-set would be often challenged to
reconsider more complex perceptions of reality. Conversely, in the
last extreme, the inability to distinguish discrete, cognitive
classifications may cause opposite disturbances of doubt—expressed by a
call for precision and order and the absence of ambiguity. (A parallel
could be drawn between these two extremes and the earlier-noted
cognitive extremes contrasting "accommodation only" versus
"assimilation only" thinking.)

A classic, prime suspect for doubt is the personality type known as the
"Perfectionist" (technically described as an "obsessive-compulsive"
individual). Of this personality, Freud once observed, "Another
mental need, which is also shared by obsessional neurotics ... is the need
for uncertainty in their life, or for doubt."'1" Freud proceeded to
distinguish the perfectionist as one having a self-fulfilling predilection
for failure, because they "turn their thoughts by preference to those
subjects upon which all mankind are uncertain and upon which our knowledge
and judgments must necessarily remain open to doubt."100

Erikson's studies likewise led him to encounter the potentially
dysfunctional state of perfectionism. Tracing the origin of this mental
condition to his theory's early second stage ("Autonomy versus Shame and
Doubt"), Erikson brands the maladjustment as a "precocious conscience."101
Through further elaboration of such an infant's disposition, he
suggests that

instead of willfully appropriating things in order to
test them by repetitive play, he will become obsessed by his own
repetitiveness and will want to have everything "just so," and only in a
given sequence and tempo. By such infantile obsessiveness and
procrastination, or by becoming a stickler for ritualistic repetitions,
the child then learns to gain power over his parents. . . . Such hollow
victory, then, is the infantile model for an adult compulsion
neurosis.102

Clinical psychologist James R. Beck claims that this pathological
personality type often breeds "extensive doubt, fear, and/or relentless
rumination."103 Moreover, Beck shows that this condition may reside within
nonbelievers and believers alike. On the one hand, Beck shows that the
obsessive-compulsive, nonreligious individual may be compared to the
person who has a nagging sensation that he may have violated a tax law.
His fear of impending arrest plagues him. Concerning more philosophical
matters, this type of person may also suffer despair from fears
revolving around topics of death and the nature of evil.104

On the other hand, Beck suggests that the Christian who experiences
this unsettling condition may, for example, be continually struggling
with a Bible passage that "causes him or her to question status with God
and spiritual position and place in the future."105 Doubting one's
conversion experience or questioning whether or not a particular sin has
nullified his salvation are quite typical anxieties for this individual.

4. Psychological factors. Webb posits that all "religious experiences
fall neatly into two categories."106 The first (his "Type A") contains
experiences that are unexpected and unprovoked by the individual in
question. Saul and his Damascus Road conversion would typify this
category. The second ("Type B") incorporates all those who actively seek
religious enlightenment. The very nature of this latter category,
Webb contends, often correlates with certain intentional alterations
in biochemical or physical conditions. Drug abuse (even some types of
incense), for example, expresses one of the most blatant, causal factors
for physiological as well as religious experiential change.
Irrespective of his overly simplified dichotomy, Webb still offers
believers a sobering word of insight. For his research indicates that less
extreme faith practices--even fasting and meditation--are also
reported to contribute directly to questioning of faith. Webb
convincingly warns that "causing an unusual biochemical state may bring
about a change of outlook which can induce doubt."107

5. Life events. The Gallup survey mentioned earlier reveals that there
are specific experiences that impact faith—times when reappraisals of
personal belief are often made. The four life events affecting faith
determined to be the most frequently cited by respondents include: (1)
experiencing the death of a loved one (86 percent), (2) receiving a
promotion or honor on the job (08 percent), (8) having a baby (either
as a mother or Hit her; 65 percent), and (4) having a "born again"
conversion (31 percent).108 It is significant to note that actual
experience of such a life event (determined by the respondent's reply
of either a simple yes or no) is distinguished from the degrees of
influence it had in the individual's life (that is, the respondent's
choice between being affected "a great deal, some, or not at all").
Consequently, a second set of complementary statistics should be
considered. Eighty percent of those who had a "born again" conversion
(again, 31 percent of the total respondents) claim that this experience
affected them a "great deal"--the highest percentage in the category
of "degree" among this quartet of life events.109 Of that 80-percent
figure, 84 percent of the women and 75 percent of the men (yielding a
composite of 80 percent) claim that they were greatly affected by their
conversion.110

Seventy-two percent of those who had a baby claim "a great deal" of
impact regarding their reassessment of life's purpose. Fifty-eight percent
of those experiencing the loss of a loved one identify the experience as
having the highest level of impact, and only 24 percent say that their
vocational promotion or honor affected their faith reappraisal to the same
degree.111

"How?"
Potential Cures For Doubt

Several avenues of counsel may be pursued when attempting to minister
to the doubter struggling with faith. The following half dozen suggestions
represent just a few of the possible remedies, not meant to stand as
isolated pieces of advice for cure. In fact an intentional
integration of ideas has been sought, and, for this reason, a
selection of insights from both Christian and secular sources were chosen
for their therapeutic benefits.

Change Misunderstandings About Faith and Doubt

Generally, doubt has been defined as the antithesis of faith, but that
is clearly not the truth. As many believers would acknowledge, Towns
claims, "I have never met an honest and sincere Christian who has not
experienced doubt."112 Yet something can be said for the confusion that
arises, because there are so many misconceptions about faith and doubt. In
light of this condition, Creel offers three "noetic perversions of
faith." (The word noetic originates from the Greek nous, meaning mind;
consequently, Creel refers to the cognitive or intellectual
misunderstandings of faith. Without altering Creel's intentions,
one could easily expand his topic to read "noetic perversions of faith and
doubt").

First is the perversion of dogmatism. "Dogmatism, I am com hired, is
the attitude of those who cannot live with the ambiguity of human
experience--or who don't see the ambiguity (and not seeing it may be a
function of not wanting to see it)."113 As a follow-up to Towns'
testimony, Creel summarizes his studies: "Most of these Christians wanted
to believe with all of their hearts, but unanswered questions plague
them."114

Believers often suffer from one particular root of dogmatism: the
tension found in theological paradoxes--two truths that seem to be
contradictory but actually coexist, much like parallel rails on a train
track. A paradoxical example in Scripture would be Philippians
2:12-13: "Continue to work out your salvation with fear and
trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act
according to His good purpose." Here, Paul claims that individual
Christians and God Himself are both responsible to pursue the ongoing
tasks of salvation. That does not mean that man earns his salvation in any
way. But it does point out that regeneration is not an "either/or" matter
(that is, God or man) but a "both/and" reality. A person who is overly
dogmatic cannot handle this tension and ambiguity. Such a person often
suffers from doubt, trying to package Scripture into neat little boxes
that never seem to fit.

Perhaps it was this understanding of dogmatism that led the skeptic
Voltaire to write, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainly is an
absurd one."

Next, Creel identifies the intellectual perversion of exclusiveness,
explaining to his readers in the second person, "You don't take seriously
what the person says who disagrees with you; you only try to figure out
how lo convert him. If he proves impervious to your appeals and arguments,
then you avoid him."115 In Luke 9:49-50 Jesus rebukes His beloved disciple
John, who had earlier restrained someone from casting out a demon.
The Lord saw that John's rationale for his restraining actions
("because he is not one of us") was extremely selfish and
myopic. Jesus much prefers a far broader category of just two types
of people: those "for us" and those "against us." It is fairly easy to see
how exclusivistic thinking leads to doubts and false guilt (that is, guilt
that comes from man's standards of living, not God's).

Third, Creel points out the perversion of coercion: "the
willingness to use propaganda or force to make people commit themselves,
or at least, say that they are committing themselves, to a certain
religious position, whether it be theistic, such as Christianity, or
atheistic, such as communism."116 Implications for doubt are self-evident
for this perversion, since coercion fosters an unhealthy and unstable
state of commitment--to say nothing of the warped ethics involved.

Again, the Lord's example is instructive here. In Mark 6:1-6, Jesus
returns to His homeland, seeking to minister to family and friends. Upon
their rejection of Him, the Lord proclaims the now-famous dictum "A
prophet is not without honor but in his own country" (v. 4, KJV). In
addition, Mark records that the Son of God was limited to healing just "a
few sick people" (v. 5) and that "he was amazed at their lack of faith"
(v. 6).

The point is foundational: even though this hometown crowd
probably included several relatives and friends, Christ refused to
manipulate their faith. In fact, His public ministry was quite severely
restricted because Jesus affirmed man's freedom to choose or reject Him.
His commendable response to Jewish abuse heaped on Him personifies what is
recorded of God the Father in Psalm 78:41 concerning the identical, sinful
rejection by the Old Testament forefathers: "Again and again they put God
to the test and vexed the Holy One of Israel."

Emphasize Healthy Thinking

Broadening the first suggested remedy for doubt, results in the
second recommended task of comprehensive mental fitness. In secular
psychological theory, one prominent example of this remedy is called
Rational-Emotive Therapy (R.E.T.). The founder of this theory, Albert
Ellis, Executive Director of the Institute of R. E. T. in New York City,
describes this discipline of cognitive control by articulating its
overriding aims:

The main subgoals of RET consist of helping people to think morn
rationally (scientifically, clearly, flexibly); to fed morn
appropriately; and to act more functionally (efficiently, undefeatingly)
in order to achieve their goals of Jiving longer and more
happily.117

By way of appropriation, Salzman employs R. E. T. techniques when he
suggests that the obsessive-compulsive individual must "acknowledge
that anxiety is universal and omnipresent and cannot be permanently
eliminated from life. This means abandoning attempts at
perfection and superhuman performance."118

Now, it is fair to say (hat the application of R. E. T. in a Christian
context is highly controversial--not the least problem of which stems from
the fact that the founder confesses to be an avowed atheist.119 However,
moderates in the controversy churn (hat the helpful truths
present, within R. E. T. can be therapeutic if they are carefully
reinterpreted within the Christian context.120 For instance, Lawrence
and Huber report, that in one particular case scriptural truth could
be intricately linked to R. E. T.'s intentional approach of realistic
thinking:

Jane was encouraged to memorize the Bible verses and use them as
"instant disputations" when she found herself resorting to her old
irrational beliefs about her self. She also incorporated them into
her use of the disputation procedure she learned, something which she
practiced at least 10 minutes per day in order to maintain and improve
her emotional well-being.121

Perhaps one of the clearest demonstrations of the integration between
Christian counsel and a modified version of R. E. T. was published in the
best seller Telling Yourself the Truth, by William Backus and Marie
Chapian (Bethany Fellowship, 1980).

CHECK AUTHORITARIANISM

Whether in the home or in the church, authoritarian leadership
inherently dominates its followers, partially causing the "noetic
perversions of faith" that Creel describes. As was shown, coercive
techniques were not popular with Jesus, nor are they shown to be
productive for healthy human development. Piaget, for example, lashes out
at such forms of manipulation because of particular research findings:

It is . . . absurd and even immoral to wish lo impose upon the
child a fully worked-out system of discipline when the social life of
children themselves if sufficiently developed to give; rise to a
discipline infinitely nearer to the inner submission which is the model
of adult morality. It is idle ... to try arid transform the child's mind
from outside, when his own taste for active research and his desire for
cooperation suffice to ensure a normal intellectual development. The
adult must therefore be a collaborator and not a master.122

Wadsworth updates Piaget's discoveries and offers summary advice for
parents and teachers who desire to work with--not against--the God-given
nature and pal-terns of a child's growth.

If the goals of education (at home and in school) include the
development of sound moral reasoning, cooperation, and autonomy,
and if we agree with Piaget's views, we can conclude that the
authoritarian model for the relationship between children and adults is
a poor one. If children develop moral judgment, cooperation, and
self-discipline in an authoritarian environment, it is in spite of,
not as a result of, their authoritarian relationship with adults.123

Of course, these insights must not be confined to parent-child or
teacher-child relationships. Adult ties (such as those between pastor and
parishioner) yield the same payoffs. Consequently, all coercive forms of
leadership must be rethought and recast into enabling, collaborative
ministries.

ENCOURAGE SCRUTINY OF FAITH

A twenty-year-old student I know had this to say about using doubt
productively: "Use the time of doubts to explore your faith. [Use it] as a
time for growing stronger in your faith and knowing what you believe,
and why."

Contrary to what might be expected, personal beliefs need to be
reassessed from time to time. Only a fairy tale view of faith claims that
doubts will not surface if--like a hornet's nest--faith remains
undisturbed. Based upon earlier statements of faith and doubt, it is not
so much whether faith will be scrutinized (for it will) but how faith will
be critiqued. Nurturing leaders of the faith, then, must provide a
supportive atmosphere where beliefs can be examined. To this end, Allport
offers timely insight to the Christian community. Referring to children
who suffer from inadequate guidance during periods of faith questioning,
he states:

Only a child who is assisted in revising his imagery and his
theology to accommodate the day-by-day increase in experience could
escape the surge of doubt. Conceivably the parent and the church school
might do a better job than they do in assisting the child over the
successive collisions of belief and experience, and in helping him
identify religion with a positive altitude toward life rather than with
immature images and interests.124

Moreover, McKenzie calls attention to a trio of specific tasks
that perpetuate a careful scrutiny of faith. First, religious roots must
be explored to enable the individual to appreciate his heritage and
provide a framework for his beliefs. Next, religious tradition must
be expanded by adapting it to personal life experiences. Without
accomplishing this task, heritage becomes irrelevant. Finally--and most
important in McKenzie's mind--believers need assistance in the
faith-critique process. The author reasons, "If the unexamined life is not
worth living, neither is the unexamined faith. ... It is only by means of
critical reflection on and evaluation of one's religious commitment that
faith becomes truly personal and more than a mere submission to religious
convention."125

What is required demands more than mere lecturing about religious
catechism. Far beyond prescribed religious instruction, careful
scrutiny involves instructional movement over and above formal sets of
questions put to growing believers. Rather, honest dialogue with learners
meets the challenge of relevant, sometimes impromptu, concerns. Also,
unlike most catechetical instruction, the careful scrutiny of faith must
involve adults as well as children. Again, McKenzie provides meaningful
suggestions concerning such an adult ministry. Along with his contemporary
assessment, he offers a word of caution to the church:

It should not be forgotten, however, that the critical appraisal
of meaning structures is a process that is mi integral part of many
adult lives. We cannot effectively forbid adults to he critical. . . .
Critical inquiry need not be adversarial, mean-spirited, or filled with
the hubris that characterizes contemporary agnostic scientism. Critical
inquiry can be undertaken constructively or destructively. It is the
task of the religious educator to help adults understand this
difference.126

Perry Downs of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School echoes the
sentiments of McKenzie. Specifically addressing his insights to
ministry with adolescents, Downs suggests that the church can serve its
doubting youth in three ways. First, a nurturing "context" must be
established, or young people might, seek alternate avenues to express
their faith questions. "The provision of this context is not as much a
matter of program as it is one of at titude"127--an emphatic "I've
been there before, myself" attitude. The attitude demonstrates that
raising faith questions is not atypical. ,

Second, concrete answers must be given to at least some of the
questions of doubt that are raised. Downs calls for youth staff to have a
working knowledge of apologetics (a rational defense of Christianity)
geared to the level of adolescent development. Youth need not only "the
security of knowing that others have raised these questions" but the
assurance "that satisfactory answers are available."128

Finally, Downs stresses the point that those who deal with adolescents

must provide for [them] a true Christian experience. ... If the
youth group is a place . . . where the presence of God is fell, the
teenager has a basis beyond the intellectual to believe. This would not
be very helpful to the doubting adult, but it is quite powerful for the
adolescent.129

Indeed, the strongest statement that Downs makes to this end of
assisting youth through their doubts comes as he concludes that "each of
the major theorists who deal with the ministry questions that are related
to faith development support these strategies."130 (Among the theorists
which Downs had earlier critiqued included James Fowler and John
Westerhoff.)

Reinforcing several of these factors pertinent to faith scrutiny comes
a vibrant personal testimony by one of the daughters of the late Francis
Schaeffer. When Susan Schaeffer Macauley was eleven years old, she
experienced a run-in with doubt that she never forgot. (Remember Fowler's
"eleven-year-old atheism"?) More significantly, she had a subsequent
run-in with her father even more unforgettable.

Picking weeds one day in the family garden with her two sisters, Debby
and Priscilla, Susan started thinking aloud concerning her faith. In their
hot, tired, and crabby condition, tempers flared over theological themes.
Finally, one of the sisters challenged Susan, saying that her faith
questioning illustrated a poor Christian testimony to villagers passing
by.

"Well, I'm not a Christian anyone!" Susan retorted. "I don't believe
any of it!"

Needless to say, the dramatic reaction of shocked silence was even more
than the preteen intended or imagined.

That momentous scene repeated itself inside Susan's young head all
afternoon, like a videotape set on automatic rewind and playback.
Following the initial shock to even her own system, the questions just
would not cease. What did she really believe?

Susan was convinced that her public denial would soon be raised again
by her sisters. It was just a matter of time and place. Suspense was
short-lived.

At the supper table, Priscilla announced, "Susan says she isn't a
Christian."

By then I didn't feel like denying her words, even though I could
see that my mother looked sad. I was sad, too, for I felt as if I had
lost God and His love. I wasn't sure that there even was a God.

But I was also determined. I couldn't believe in fairy tales! I
had to grow up.

That easily could have been my last day of knowing God was there,
and that I was sale in the order lie had provided. It could have been
the death of my faith.

Or it could have been the end of my progress into thinking as an
adult. All it would have taken was a comment like, "Of course you're a
Christian, Susan," or, "You're only eleven; you don't know what you're
saying, " or, "Don't be foolish--it's obvious that the Bible is
true."

But something else happened instead. That night when I was ready
for bed, alone and quiet in my room, my father came in.

"Let's talk, Susan," he said seriously. "Tell me why you said you
are no longer a Christian."

I confessed that I'd first said the words because I was mad. "But
as soon as I said it, I was scared." I explained. "I can't call myself a
Christian! All this time, I've only believed it because you and mother
told me about it. Now I'll have to wait and see if it's true or not.
Maybe the other religions are true. Or maybe there isn't even a God at
all!"

There was a moment of silence. I still remember the quiet,
friendly companionship in the atmosphere when my dad finally answered
me. "Susan," he said, "those are good questions. I'm glad you've asked
them."

What a relief! That dizzy, lonely feeling left me. It was OK to
ask questions! It was important for me to rind out for myself if what
I'd believed was true.

As we talked that night, I discovered that my dad had asked these
same questions about God in his own search for answers. Dad opened the
door for me into a new adventure. He said that I didn't have to go
through life with a blindfold on my mind to believe in God, merely
clinging to hopes and feelings. Neither did I have to throw my beliefs
out the window.

If something is true, he explained, you can look at it hard, and
think about it, and compare it with other beliefs, and it will stand. It
will be reliable.

I decided to do just that.131

RESPECT CHOICE AND OWNERSHIP

Closely affiliated with the subject of scrutiny is freedom of
choice. As individuals investigate what it is that they believe (as
opposed to what they are told to believe), caring leadership would do
well to value and encourage personal faith ownership. Substantial research
indicates that the twin process of self-evaluation and individual
affirmation not only possess inherent and immediate virtue but provide
necessary innovation for the perseverance of future faith. To this end,
respected psychologist David Elkind, elaborating on Piaget's theory,
suggests that "it is the child who must, at any given point in time,
choose the method of learning and materials that are reinforcing to
him."132 Addressing the negative dimension of this educational
premise, Elkind continues, "Without the opportunity for student choice and
the provision of large blocks of time, in which the child can totally
engross himself in an activity, the values of intrinsic motivation will
not be realized."133

Wadsworth refers to this matter of choice and selection as
"spontaneous interest"--unique reflections of individual preference,
often accompanying signs of personal disequilibrium.134 It simply boils
down to the fact that everybody prizes participation in areas of
personal choice. And faith is no exception. When we "buy into" the
ownership of our faith, it is immensely stronger than an inherited--or
surrogate--faith.

The apostle Paul speaks of the value of faith ownership, using
such synonyms as personal conscience and conviction. In Romans 14, rather
than winning popularity votes by judging certain cultural controversies as
either good or bad, Paul prefers to lay down principles whereby believers
can "agree to disagree" with one another. The most prominent principle to
surface from this approach is the imperative of personal faith ownership.
The apostle challenges individual members of his mature Roman
congregation to continually ask themselves, "What is it that I really
believe?" and then to live by those heartfelt convictions. Three
principles stand out: (1) "Each man should be fully convinced in his own
mind" (v. 5); (2) "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.
But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean"
(v. 14); and (3) "But the man who has doubts [i.e., who does not have the
personal conviction] is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not
from faith [or conviction]; and everything that does not come from faith
[or conviction] is sin" (v. 23).135

UTILIZE SOURCES OF SUPPORT

Analogous to the planned rehearsal of fire drill procedures in a
public facility, research shows that most people tend to have a game plan
when private faith is questioned. Doubt "escape exits"--so to
speak--include ii combination of personal, interpersonal, and
supernatural sources. The 1985 Gallup survey uncovers various forms
of those game plans as interviewers raised the question, "When you are
faced with a problem or crisis, like those in the previous question [i.e.,
the "life events" noted earlier], to which of the following kinds of
support would you likely turn for help?" The question was then
supplemented by nine suggestions from the research staff.136 Though
limited by the convergent-type format of those nine areas of support, the
answers of the respondents were balanced. Most people chose
interpersonal forms of support: 87 percent, say they would seek refuge for
their faith struggles within their family, and 73 percent state they would
share their problem with close friends. A far lower number claim they
would go to a religious counselor (40 percent), see another type of
professional counselor (31 percent), or discuss the matter with a
support group (26 percent) or a religious class (23 percent).

One young man recently told me how an assistant dean at his college
inadvertently dropped in to see him only minutes before he intentionally
planned to commit suicide by drug overdose. This is how he told his story:

God intervened [and] brought my Assistant. Dean into my room to
just say "Hi" and give me a hug. That was all it took to make me realize
that God wanted me to stay alive and that. He really would help me with
the pain and confusion [of doubt] inside. ... A big factor a listening
ear, empathy, comfort and acceptance of me and my feelings.

Many students have communicated with me how invaluable the
interpersonal form of support really is--a nonnegotiable factor for most
who mention this theme. On the negative side, one middle-aged woman
recalled her doubting experience from eleven years ago. She confided, "No
one helped. I quit church for a couple of years."

On a more positive note, a younger woman offered this testimony:
"During my mother's illness and death, family struggles, and breakup of a
personal friendship, the family that I lived with just listened to me,
loved me, and continually affirmed that 'God is good find what Ho does is
good.'"

A twenty-nine-year-old man chimed in: "I saw someone loved me, just as
I am--someone showed that he saw some value in me."

Just to keep us "church professionals" humble, another young man
spoke of his salvation six years ago, with ensuing doubts: "[In looking
back] I was amazed to see how little influence counselors, pastors, and
leaders seemed to have had in my life regarding major decisions. ...
I never met a 'professional Christian.'"

A high percentage responded that they would opt for supernatural
assistance: 80 percent testified that they would pray about their faith
struggle, and 64 percent said that they would rend the Bible or other
inspirational literature. (Comparing subgroups, it was found I hat 87
percent of nonwhite respondents as opposed to 61 percent of white
respondents made the latter choice.)

Also, as much as 80 percent admitted lo valuing a personal form of
support, for example, to working out the problem on their own.137

Summary

Numerous statements have been offered concerning the nature of faith
and doubt. Some of the more salient conclusions of this particular
overview have been the following: Questioning faith is a worldwide
human phenomenon; it is not restricted to religious or nonreligious
persons. Doubt should be viewed from the larger perspective of holistic
development; cognitive, emotional, social, and spiritual growth all play a
part in the complete picture of maturation. There are different types
of doubt, some forms of which may be highly beneficial for faith
formation. Because of its genetic (and generic) nature, doubt
surfaces within people of all age groups; however, because of its
multifaceted nature, it must be addressed as a unique, case-specific
activity. Also, the Christian home, church, and school need to produce
more knowledgeable and sensitive leaders who will ably assist its
membership during difficult times of doubt.

In conclusion, Leon McKenzie's earlier quotation deserves
reconsideration, for it succinctly capsulates the truth-kernel of
Christian doubt and what can be done about it:

We come into the world with question marks in our heads. . . . The
question marks in our heads are never fully erased. The religious
educator, particularly the religious educator of adults, can help
learners in the quest that is mandated by a seeking faith. . . . We
cannot effectively forbid adults to be critical. Willy-nilly, many
adults will subject their childhood beliefs to critical analysis in
spite of exhortations to the contrary. Further, it is better to help
adults appraise religious tradition from within the confines of the
church than lo fail by default and allow them to critique religious
teachings outside the context of the church.138

Endnotes--Appendix

1. G. W. Allport. The Individual and His Religion (New York: Macmillan,
1950), p. 113.
2. Faith Development and Your Ministry (Princeton,
N.J.: (Gallup, I986). p. 8.
3. Ibid., p. 7.
4. Ibid. p. 9.
5.
Ibid., pp. 19-20.
6. Ibid., p. 21.
7. Ibid., p. 22.
8. Early
Latin Theology, vol. 5 of Library of Christian Classics, trans. and ed. S.
L. Greenslade (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956). p. 38.
9. Leon
McKenzie, "The Purpose and Scope of Adult Religious Education," in
Handbook of Adult Religious Education, ed. Nancy Foltz. (Birmingham, Ala.:
Religious Education, 1986). p. 11.
10. Michael Chandler, "The Othello
Effect: Essay on the Emergence and Eclipse of Skeptical Doubt," in Human
Development 30 (1987): 138.
11. Philip M. Helfaer, The Psychology of
Religious Doubt (Boston: Beacon, 1972), p. 11.
12. Allport, p. 83.

13. Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology (New York: Holt. Rinehart &
Winston, 1963). p. 131.
14. Hugh D. Alien, "Doubt as Discontinuity in
Religious Life," M.A. thesis, Vanderbilt, Nashville, 1968, p. 1.
15.
Elmer L. Towns, "The Ministry of Doubt," The Evangelical Beacon,
September 28, 1965, p. 6.
16. Barth, p. 123.
17. Allport, p.
114.
18. Towns, p. 6.
19. Philip Phenix, "Transcendence and the
Curriculum," in Curriculum Theorizing, ed. William Pinar (Berkeley,
Calif.: McCutchan, 1975), p. 331.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22.
Alien, p. 40.
23. M. Jamie Ferreira, Doubt and Religious Commitment
(Oxford, England: Clarendon, 1980), p. 3.
24. Helfaer, p. 307.
25.
Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper, 1957). p. 22.
26.
Paul Tillich. Systematic Theology (Chicago: U. of Chit-ago Press. 1957),
2:73.116.
27. Roger Trigg, Reason and Commitment (Cambridge. England:
Cambridge U. Press. 1973), p. 46.
28. See Richard E. Creel, Religion
and Doubt (Englewood Cliffs. N. .1.: Prentice-Hall. 1977). p. 82.
29.
Towns, p. 7.
30. Creel, p. 70.
31. Ibid., p. 71.
32. Ibid., p.
72.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Faith Development and Your
Ministry, p. 23.
36. Ibid., p. 24.
37. See James E. Marcia's
"Identity in Adolescence," in J. Adelson, ed., Handbook of Adolescent
Psychology (New York: Wiley, 1980).
38. James E. Marcia, "Development
and Validation of Ego-Identity Status," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 3, no. 5 (1966):551 -58.
39. Allport, p. 120.
40.
Ibid., p. 121.
41. Ibid., pp. 122-23.
42. Ibid., p. 124.
43.
Ibid., p. 131.
44. Ibid., p. 133.
45. Ibid., p. 135.
46. See
Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Children (New York:
International Universities, 1963).
47. Barry J. Wadsworth, Piaget
for the Classroom Teacher (New York: Longmans, 1978), p. 146. See
also Leon Festinger's complementary view of disequilibrium in his A
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford U. Press,
1962), especially his summary on p. 260.
48. See Russell M. Grieger
and John D. Boyd, "Childhood Anxieties, Fears, and Phobias," in
Rational-Emotive Approaches to the Problems of Childhood, ed. Albert
Ellis and Michael E. Bernard (New York: Plenum, 1983).
49. Ibid., p.
222.
50. See pp. 223 27 in Grieger and Boyd.
51. Helfaer, p. 163.

52. See Lawrence Kohlberg, "The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to
Moral Education," in Moral Development. ... It Comes with the
Territory, ed. David Purpel and Kevin Ryan (Berkeley, Calif.:
McCutchan, 1976), pp. 215-16. Later revisions of Kohlberg's research tend
to modify Stage 6 or delete it altogether.
53. See Fowler's Stages of
Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981). Especially note chap. 13.
"Structural-Developmental Theories and Faith." This chapter is
designed to summarize contributions Fowler has gleaned from other
theories, but it also—in Fowler's own words—points out "some of the
limitations of their approaches for our project and says some things
about how we are trying to correct or go beyond these limits" (p. 98).

54. James W. Fowler, Faith Development and Pastoral Care
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), p. 86.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57.
Helfaer, p. 126.
58. Ibid., p. 304.
59. Fowler, Faith Development
and Pastoral Care, pp. 86-87.
60. Mark 0. Webb, "Religious Experience
as Doubt Resolution." International Journal for Philosophy of
Religion 18 (1985): 83.
61. Ibid., pp. 83-84.
62. See Erik H.
Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: Norton, 1963).
63. Erik H.
Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York: Norton, 1968). p. 110.

64. Ibid., p. 109.
65. Ibid., p. 112.
66. Barry J. Wadsworth,
Piagel's Theory of Cognitive tind Affective Development, 3d ed. (New
York: Longmans, 1984), p. 116.
67. Chandler, p. 150.
68. Ibid.

69. Erikson. Identity: Youth and Crisis, p. 112.
70. Stephen R.
Shirk. "Self Doubt in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence," Journal of
Youth and Adolescence 16, no. 1 (1987): 66.
71. Chandler, p. 150.

72. See B. Inhelder and J. Piaget. The Growth of Logical Thinking
(London: Routledge & Kegan, 1958).
73. Chandler, p. 146.
74.
Ibid., p. 142.
75. Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis, p. 112.

76. Helfaer, p. 8.
77. See Erik Erikson, Young Man Luther (New
York: Norton. 1958).
78. Helfaer. pp. 125-26.
79. Ibid., pp.
106-7.
80. Ibid., pp. 29-31.
81. Ibid., pp. 16-17; 24-25; 52-56.

82. To state this same category in a positive manner, Jeffrey Hadden
and Robert Evans have demonstrated that students who come from more
religiously active homes tend to continue that religious activity in
college. See their article "Some Correlates of Religious Participation
Among College Freshmen," Religious Education 60 (July-August
I9*>r>|. p. 284. Also, Joseph Havens found that students with
stronger religious backgrounds tend to have fewer severe conflicts in
their Faith. See his article "The Changing Climate of Research on the
College Student and His Religion," Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 3 (I all 1963): 59.
83. Helfaer, p. 118.
84. Ibid., p.
109.
85. Ibid., pp. 126,220-21.
86. Ibid., p. 109.
87. Albert
Ellis and Michael E. Bernard, "An Overview of Rational Emotive Approaches
to the Problems of Childhood," in Rational-Emotive Approaches to the
Problems of Childhood, ed. Albert Ellis and Michael E. Bernard (New York:
Plenum, 1983), p. 23.
88. Grieger and Boyd, pp. 220-22.
89. See G.
W. Allport and J. Ross, "Personal Orientation and Prejudice," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 5 (1967): 432-43. Also see J. Feagin,
"Prejudice and Religious Types: A Focused Study of Southern
Fundamentalism," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 4 (1964):
3-13.
90. R. U. Martin, C. McDonald, and L. F. Shepel, "Locus of
Control and Two Measures of Irrational Beliefs," Psychological Reports 39
(1970): 307-10.
91. Louis H. Prirnavera, John Tantillo, and Theresa
DeLisio. "Religious Orientation, Religious Behavior, and Dogmatism as
Correlates of Irrational Beliefs," Rational Living 15, no. 2:37.
92.
Ibid., pp. 30-37.
93. Chandler, p. 154.
94. Ibid.
95. Shroder,
Driver, and Streufert, Human Information Processing (New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1967).
96. Ibid., p. 19.
97. Ibid.. p. 23.

98. Ibid., p. 22.
99. Sigmund Freud, "Notes upon a Case of
Obsessional Neurosis," Second Edition 10 (1909): 232.
100. Ibid.

101. Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis, p. 111.
102. Ibid.

103. James R. Beck, "Treatment of Spiritual Doubt Among Obsessing
Evangelicals," Journal of Psychology and Theology 9, no. 3 (Fall 1981):
225.
104. Ibid.
105. Ibid.
106. Webb, p. 81.
107. Ibid.,
p. 84.
108. Faith Development and Your Ministry, p. 27.
109. Ibid.

110. Ibid., p. 39.
111. Ibid., p. 27.
112. Towns, p.6.

113. Creel, p. 86.
114. Towns, p. 6.
115. Creel, p. 86.

116. Ibid., p. 87.
117. Albert Fllis and Michael K. Bernard, "What
Is Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET)?" in Clinical Applications of
Rational-Emotive Therapy, ed. Albert Hllis and Michael F,. Bernard (New
York: Plenum, 1985). p. 5.
118. L. Salzman, The Obsessive Personality:
Origins, Dynamics, and Therapy (New York: Science House, 1908), p. 267.

119. Constance Lawrence and Charles H. Huber, "Strange Bedfellows?:
Rational-Emotive Therapy and Pastoral Counseling," The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, December 1982, p. 210. See also Ben N. Ard, Jr.,
"Nothing's Uglier Than Sin," Rational Living 2, no. 1: 4-0. Also Richard
L. Wessler, "A Bridge Too Far: Incompatibilities of Rational-Emotive
Therapy and Pastoral Counseling," The Personnel and Guidance Journal.
January 1984. pp. 264-66.
120. See "Comparisons: Christianity and
Rationality," by Paul A. Hauck and F. Grau. Rational Living 3, no. 2:
30-37.
121. Lawrence and Hubcr, p. 212.
122. J. Piaget. The Moral
Judgment of the Child (New York: Free Press. 1965), p. 404.
123 Barry
J. Wadsworth, Piaget's Theory of Cognitive and Effective Development. 3d
ed. (White Plains, N. Y.: Longman, 1984). pp. J92-93.
124. Allport, p.
115.
125. McKenzie, p. 12. 120. Ibid.
127. Perry G. Downs, "Faith
Shaping: Bringing Youth to Spiritual Maturity," in The Complete Book of
Youth Ministry, ed. Warren S. Benson and Mark H. Senter III (Chicago:
Moody, 1987). p. 57.
128. Ibid.
129. Ibid.
130. Ibid.
131.
Susan Schaaffer Macauley, How to Be Your Own Selfish Pig (Elgin. III.:
Cook, 1984), pp. 13-18.
132. David Elkind, "Two Approaches to
Intelligence: Piagetian and Psychometric," in Measurement and Piaget, ed.
P. Green, M. lord, and G. Mam-er (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 25.

133. Ibid.
134. Sec Wadsworth's Piaget for the Classroom Teacher.

135. Of course, the apostle Paul also balanced the truth about faith
ownership with the theological tension of submission to fellow believers
who might be offended by certain self-selected practices in the church.
See Ronald T. Habermas, "Gray Matters," Christianity Today (August 7,
1987). pp. 23 25.
136. Faith Development and Your Ministry, p. 29.

137. Ibid.
138. McKenzie, pp. 11-12.

Copyright ©1990 by Dr. Gary
R. Habermas. All rights reserved.

Return
To Top
>>

GaryHabermas.com
home :|: articles :|: books :|: Q&A :|: events :|: audio :|: video :|: games
vita :|: resume :|: list of publications :|:
links :|: liberty university