A Christian Dealing With Doubts

 As I noted earlier, this one by Guinness has been the “book of the month” for me in many ways: God in the Dark: The Assurance of Faith Beyond a Shadow of Doubt (Wheaton: Crossway, 1996).  As Christians, many of us have a tough time admitting that we have some doubts about the faith.  If that describes you, I recommend this book.  In it, Guinness defines doubt, discusses it, and shows seven major areas of doubt in the Christian life (a few examples: doubt from a faulty view of God, doubt from lack of commitment, doubt from unruly emotions, and doubt from weak foundations). 

The book is well written; it is clear and (thankfully) lacks all the buzzwords so common in Christianity today.  Though the book is easy to read, it is not a quick read because Guinness packs a lot in each chapter.  In fact, after reading it once and skimming it again, I’ve decided the best way to profit from this book is to outline it for myself.  To get you more interested, here are a few quotes.

“Anyone who believes anything will automatically know something about doubt.  But those who know why they believe are also in a position to discover why they doubt.  The follower of Christ should be such a person…they are those who ‘think in believing and believe in thinking,’ as Augustine expressed it” (p. 14).

“Doubt is not the opposite of faith, nor is it the same as unbelief.  Doubt is a state of mind in suspension between faith and unbelief so that it is neither of them wholly and it is each only partly” (p. 26).

“Doubt is not always fatal but it is always serious” (p. 29).

“Believe in God for wrong reasons or for no reason at all and you cannot expect to be free from doubt” (p. 40).

“We love our idols because we made them.  God’s truth, however, is much less comfortable, and the habit of being stretched by its demands is challenging” (p. 73).

“The Christian faith is not true because it works.  It works because it is true” (p. 77).

“Mystery is beyond human reason, but it is not against human reason” (p. 80).

“We do not trust God because he guides us; we trust God and then are guided, which means that we can trust God even when we do not seem to be guided.  Faith may be in the dark about guidance, but it is never in the dark about God.  What God is doing may be mystery, but who God is is not” (p. 176). (Note: Guinness is talking about the fact that God’s faithfulness and trustworthiness are not mysteries.)

One more:

“The waters may be dark and swirling, but faith steps from one stepping stone of God’s Word to another” (p. 205).

The whole book is like this – full of brilliant parts that take much reflection.  I’ll come back to this later…

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Westminster Assembly Project: Announcement

This is good news for students of theology and church history, especially those of us with a Presbyterian “bent.”  Reformation Heritage Books (RHB) and The Westminster Assembly Project have teamed up to publish some older documents from the theologically fruitful Westminster Assembly and some of its delegates.  Go here for more info – and stay tuned!

Note: The Westminster Assembly Project website is here.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Natural Law and Two Kingdoms: Conclusion

Though I had hoped to finish doing a very brief run-down of VanDrunen’s new book last week, I’ll have to settle for briefly finishing it up today.  I’m picking up with chapter eight, where VanDrunen discusses Barth and the Reformed doctrines of natural law and the two kingdoms. 

Essentially, says VanDrunen, Barth rejected the natural law and two kingdoms doctrines because he rejected “the theological foundation traditionally undergirding these doctrines” (p. 344).  Barth’s christology swallowed everything up, so that he hated to separate creation and redemption.  Barth rejected the covenant of works and the two-fold mediatorship of Christ (to name just two Reformed doctrines), and with them, natural law and two kingdoms.  Of course, there is much more to be said, and VanDrunen does so in this chapter.  I was glad to see that he wrestled with Barth’s writings, not just what people say about Barth.

Chapter nine is about Herman Dooyeweerd and Neo-Calvinism in North America.  In summary, VanDrunen shows that/how Dooyeweerd and the like “placed an eschatological burden upon the cultural task that was not present in earlier Reformed thought and that further distinguishes their thought from earlier ideas of natural law and the two kingdoms” (p. 349).  Earlier Reformed theology said that the Christian working in the “common realm” had a good and legitimate task, a God-glorifying one, but the task was not loaded with an eschatological end.  Instead, the earlier reformers more stressed the “temporal” aspect of the Christian’s vocation.  The Neo-Calvinists, however, mostly did away with the common and put an eschatological (redemptive) focus to the Christian’s common vocation.  This, VanDrunen shows, is at odds with earlier Reformers precisely because they held to natural law and the two kingdoms.  Neo-Calvinists rejected this and talked about one kingdom (and some of them put that hand in hand with one covenant instead of the classic Reformed teaching of two covenants [works and grace]).  I almost hate summarizing it because 1) there is much more to it, and 2) I don’t want people to take these few sentences and ignore the chapter.  I strongly suggest reading the chapter before coming to conclusions here. 

Chapter ten was also fascinating.  In it, VanDrunen dug into Cornelius Van Til’s thought.  This chapter was an eye-opener.  VanDrunen showed how Van Til differed from Kuyper on common grace, in that Kuyper noted that there are common areas of life grounded in creation that could have purposes independent of redemption (special grace).  Van Til, however, more stressed how common grace was a sort of earlier grace which will (he said) eliminate common grace until the end of history when commonness has expired (p. 403-4).  Van Til also rejected (though somewhat ambiguously) the standard two-fold mediatorship of Christ that Kuyper and the earlier Reformed tradition taught clearly.  In other words, Kuyper was more in line with earlier Reformers concerning common grace and Christ’s two-fold mediatorship than was Van Til.  Again, don’t just take these words, read the chapter before making conclusions!

VanDrunen comments about the benefits of maintaining the older Reformed teaching of natural law and the two kingdoms in the last chapter.  He does note some specific application of these teachings in our culture today, but he does not pretend it is easy or black and white.  Here’s his conclusion: “The task will not be easy, but those accepting the challenge to reappropriate the categories and wrestle with pressing objections may hope to provide a significant contribution to the ongoing conversation within the larger Christian community” (p. 434).

To summarize this book (and my very brief review), I consider it an essential addition to the discussion of Christ/culture and church/state relationships.  This is a good historical defense of what two kingdoms and natural law meant to older theologians and Reformers, and how they applied it to their particular situations.  The reading isn’t too difficult if you have some background in these areas, and VanDrunen writes clearly and explains terms well.  I do hope many will wrestle with the contents of this book - it should be on the shelf of Reformed/Presbyterian Christians who have read and pondered these issues.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Reading…

I’ve been on a reading kick lately (more than usual), so I have many books about which to blog, but not enough time.  So I’ll note a few now, and come back to them some other day.  I also hope to finish my notes on David VanDrunen’s Natural Law and Two Kingdoms book very soon.

Though I’ve heard of J.B. Phillips’ Your God is Too Small, on Saturday I had the privilege to read it for the first time.  Though I have a few quibbles with some of his terminology, overall the book was great.  It reads a tad like C.S. Lewis and is a good book for those of us interested in defending the faith (while strengthening our own!).  I was reminded once again that distortions of who God is did not originate in the last 10 years with Dawkins or Oprah or Osteen.

Last week Friday I read Jason Stellman’s new book, Dual Citizens.  I see this one sort of like a greatest hits album.  Stellman nicely weaves together some of the insights of guys like Mike Horton, Darryl Hart, Meredith Kline, William Willimon, and others to argue for an “ordinary” sort of Christianity – ordinary in the way of word, sacrament, and pilgrim living in the already/not yet.  This one is good for those just getting into confessional Reformation theology – it harmonizes well with Modern Reformation and the White Horse Inn, for example.

Over the past few weeks I also enjoyed Marilynne Robinson’s Home.  It is a sort of companion to her Gilead.  Each of these cover the same time period (roughly the 60s or so in a small Iowa town) and each focuses on a different pastor from this town.  I do admit that I liked Gilead much more than Home, but I recommend these books for anyone who likes good writing – and Pastors or church leaders will especially identify with them.

I’m just finishing up Os Guinness’ outstanding work, God in the Dark.  This is a brilliant book that wrestles with doubt, faith, certainty, and knowledge.  It is a perfect companion to some of Newbigin’s works, along with my other favorite, Bavinck’s Certainty of Faith.  I’ll for sure post on this one later, as it has seriously helped me deal with some of my own doubts.  I love this book.

I am nearly finished with Stanley Hauerwas’ A Cross Shattered Church.  Reading Hauerwas (for me) is like reading Barth: sometimes it makes you want to dance and sing and laugh, and other times it makes you want to stomp and cuss and cry.  Actually, if you read Hauerwas, you won’t have to cuss because he does so for you (yes, there are a few cuss words in this book).  But he is always worth reading (even though I am not a pacifist-anabapstist, nor do I sympathize with Roman Catholic theology), because of statements like these: “The great challenge of not how we can fit Jesus into the story of the Enlightenment, but how the story of the Enlightenment is to be judged by Jesus” (p. 39).  It is a relatively easy and short read, but I only recommend it to those who are solidly standing in a robustly confessional faith.

One more: I’ve enjoyed reading through the OPC’s Book of Church Order.   Solid presbyterian church government is a beautiful thing, a thing from which other churches can certainly benefit.  Here is a statement of presbyterian beauty: “All governing assemblies have the same kinds of rights and powers,” yet at the same time “all church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.  No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God” (chs XII.1 and III.3).  And kudos to the OPC for a handsome little booklet that is inexpensive at the same time! [Side note: I'm wondering why they still use the KJV in certain places of the BCO and the suggested forms.]

On my “to read” shelf are these three, among others: 1) Ed Welch’s Depression, a Stubborn Darkness, 2) K. Scott Oliphint and Rod Mays’ Things That Cannot Be Shaken and 3) William Edgar’s Lifting the Veil: The Face of Truth.  Stay tuned!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Humility – Where Has It Moved? (Chesterton)

 This one is worth reading aloud – a few times.

“What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.  Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition.  Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be.  A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.”

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (SanFransisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 36-37.

shane lems

sunnyside wa