V. CHRISTIAN FAITH IS NOT CREDULITY
CHAPTER V CHRISTIAN FAITH IS NOT CREDULITY
Believing that Christian faith is credulity, mere blind superstition, many unbelievers scoffingly turn aside from Christianity. Why should we close our eyes to facts, to evidence, they reason; and since, they assume, Christianity calls on us to do this we cannot accept Christianity. This misconception of the nature of Christian faith may be due to a number of factors: such as a prejudice on the part of the unbeliever that will not admit that Christianity has any evidence on which to stand; to an unfair treatment of the Bible wherein passages, which condemn as immoral certain forms of unbelief, are taken out of their context; to an indifference to those passages which clearly teach that faith is based on facts, and to a misconception of Christian faith which is presented by some ignorant believers; ignorant, that is, of the Bible teaching concerning the basis of faith.
I. THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF DOUBTS
Failing to distinguish between things that are different, unbelievers conclude that any form of doubt is automatically condemned by the Scriptures. There is doubt which is due to a failure to understand an argument or to see certain facts because these facts have not yet been presented to the individual. On the other hand, there is a doubt which is due to a refusal to listen to an argument and a rejection of facts. "The critical attitude may come from a genuine desire to know the truth or it may come from a desire to avoid unpleasant truth. In the one case it is not sinful, in the other it is a sin against the light and is therefore one of the worst sins. But outwardly the two things appear very much the same, though many think that they are capable of detecting 'arguing for the sake of arguing'."
The Bible does not condemn the attitude which is unwilling to believe without evidence. Christians are warned not to believe every prophet; to try those who profess to be apostles; to beware of false teachers and to detect their falsehood by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-18; 1 John 4:1-2; Revelation 2:2). Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, is the apostolic adominition (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The doubt of Thomas and the doubt of John's disciples was dealt with without harshness, but with the presentation of proof which took away the basis for doubt (John 20:24-30).
Doubt, however, was condemned when it was due to a refusal to see the truth and to a carnal condition of heart which the possessor was determined to maintain. "How can ye believe," said Jesus, "who receive glory one of another, and the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not? Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" ( John 5:44-47) . In the same context He said: "But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves." (John 5:42).
II. FAITH IS NOT CREDULITY
One of the convincing proofs that the New Testament does not call for credulity is that the type of mind, which it maintains is necessary for faith, is the very type which any scientist would say is necessary in order to discover and accept truth. Some of these characteristics are:
(1) Humility (Matthew 18:1-4).
(2) Love the truth (John 18:37; John 8:32).
(3) Willing to hear (Romans 10:17).
(4) Willing to prove things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
(5) Refuse to be shackled by passions and thus to always believe only what pleases (2 Timothy 4:3-4; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).
(6) Refuse to accept, without testing, everyone and just anything (1 John 4:1; Revelation 2:2).
(7) Have a good and honest heart (Luke 8:15).
What better attitude of heart and mind can any person have than w have the one recommended by the Bible? How can any but the credulous, or the uninformed, believe that the Bible recommends credulity?
III. THE CHILDLIKE HEART
One of the passages which is used to prove that Christianity recommends credulity is found in Matthew 18:1-3. A brief glance at it, however, should enable a person to see that Jesus is not recommending every characteristic of childhood but one which the disciples sorely needed and which scientist recognize as essential to learning, i.e. humility and a willingness to be taught. "In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus saying Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." The person who is not humble will not admit his ignorance and thus his need for instruction. And thus he will not hear and examine the truth which is presented to him, especially those truths which may strike a blow at his intellectual and spiritual pride.
An excellent extensive treatment of this statement of Jesus will be found in Richard Whately's Essays on Some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Faith. The reader will be impressed not only with the fact that Jesus did not commend credulity in this passage, but that this passage is one of the indications of the wisdom of Jesus.
To this subject of the childlike heart and of the true nature of Christian faith it is our intention to return, the Lord willing, in a book on Faith and Facts. In this we shall abundantly establish that faith is based on facts; that faith legitimately goes beyond the immediate facts; and that faith also leads to facts.
IV. FALSE CONCEPTION OF DOUBT IS A CAUSE OF APOSTASY
Some believers who have been taught that all doubt is evil, and that it should be crushed out of their minds, may not always be able to dispel it. These doubts, because they are taught that they are evil in themselves, are not brought to the light, solved, and followed by an increase of faith. Instead, they are crowded into the back of the mind and there they lurk and from time time are joined by other doubts which the individual is endeavoring to crush. These are not really forgotten and as they increase in number they tend to build up a certain bias or prejudice in the mind which tends to take the heart and peace out of their religion and may finally result in unbelief. Dr. Clark has well analyzed this type of treatment of doubt. "If conscience suggests that certain rationalist arguments ought to be examined, there can be no excuse for suppressing it. After all, when this happens, doubt is already present and it is honesty, not sin, to admit the fact. Furthermore, if doubts are not admitted, they wll accumu-late in the subconscious mind in an undigested form where they are bound to influence behaviour, where they produce hypocrisy and where in many cases they burst forth and cause an apparently keen Christian to reverse his moral character. The fact that suppressed doubt is doubt nevertheless, and is very dangerous psychologically, constitutes another strong reason why conscience must never be suppressed on the ground that it appears to be evil. Clearly, it is far better to know that one doubts than to remain outwardly an enthusiastic Christian and know that if the Bible means what it says, Christ will ultimately make public the secrets of all hearts, and expose our unbelief. These are the secrets which need exposing now.
"Every doubt, as with all other promptings of conscience, must be faced as it comes. Sometimes the answers may not be found at once, but the questions raised must often be allowed to enter the field of consciousness so that a look-out may always be kept for resolutions. But, generaly speaking, sufficent unto the day is the evil thereof, provided the evil of many days is not crowded into one.
"It is here, however, that there is danger. It often happens that a Christian represses his doubts for a long time, and then decides to face up to them of a sudden. In such a case arguments against his faith have collected at the back of the mind, while their answers have not so collected. Hence, when the doubts are admitted, the position is hopelessly one-sided, and it often leads to an abandonment of faith. The life histories of many agnostics who were formerly professed Christians show that the change was produced in this way. Unfortunately, in such a moment of crisis, the bias to which the judgment is subjected may be lost sight of.
It would seem best, therefore, that the transition from a dishonest to an honest attitude towards doubts should be brought about very slowly, or if this is impossible that the probable psychological result of what is in effect a study of only one side of the problem, should be kept strongly in mind."2 That is, the individual should not try to face all of his doubts at once. They have not accumulated all at once and they cannot be solved all at once (especially when a bias has already been built up in the mind by the mass of unsolved difficulties) since this means an attempt to solve some particular difficulty in an atmosphere of doubt. Then, too, as pointed out in the section on viewing the evidence before concentrating on the difficulties, one cannot get a proper view of either the evidence or the objections unless he does make the right type of approach.
It is clear that one should seek the solution of difficulties instead of trying to hide them from oneself. In many cases, to state clearly the difficulty may be enough to enable one to see that it offers no real problem to faith. Then, too, since one knows the exact difficulty he can keep his eyes open for material which will solve it. One will not, of course, take time off in every case until he finds the solution, for the answer may not turn up for some time. It may come when one is reading or thinking on some other subject. Thus one may lay aside a problem for a time, but since he has faced it squarely in the beginning he can always be on the lookout for light on it. In the meantime he goes about his daily life without any undue disturbance of mind, for he has avoided the anxiety of mind, and the building up of a bias against faith, which often comes when one suppresses his problems in an effort to keep from admitting to himself that he has had some problems presented to him.
V. CREDULITY IS CONDEMNED
Of the idea that faith is not connected with evidence Dr. Whately wrote as follows: "The faith which the Christian Scriptures speak of and command, is the very contrary of that blind sort of belief and trust which does not rest on any good reason. This last is more properly called credulity than faith. When a man believes without evidence, or against evidence, he is what we rightly called credulous. But he is never commended for this; on the contrary, we often find in Scripture mention made of persons who are reproached for their unbelief or want of faith, precisely on account of their showing this kind of credulity; that is, not judging fairly according to the evidence, but resolving to believe only what was agreeable to their prejudices, and to trust any one who flattered those prejudices."
When the sacred writers "commend a man's faith, it is because he listens fairly to evidence, and judges according to the reasons laid before him. The difficulty and the virtue of faith consists in a man's believing and trusting, not against evidence, but against his expectations and prejudices, against his inclinations, and passion, and interests. We read, accordingly, that Jesus offered sufficient proof of his coming from God. . ." Although He manifested His power in signs and wonders they attributed it to the power of the devil and otherwise brought objections against Christ.
"But if He had come among them offering to fulfill their expectations, and undertaking to deliver their country from the Romans ,then even though He had shown no miraculous power, many of them would have received Him readily. And indeed it is recorded of Him, that He declared this himself, and foretold to his disciples, 'Many will come in my name,' (that is, taking on them my character,) 'saying, I am (the) Christ, and will deceive many.' And again 'I am come in my Father's name,' (that is, with my Father's authority and power) 'and you receive me not; if another shall come in his own name,' (that is, requiring to be believed on his bare word, without any miraculous signs,) 'him ye will receive.'
"And so it came to pass: for in the last siege of Jerusalem many impostors came forward, each one claiming to be the Christ, and drawing mutitudes to follow him, and leading them to make the most desperate resistance to the Romans: till at length the city was taken and the nation utterly overthrown.
"Now the Jews who believed any one of these impostors were led to do so by their prejudices, and expectations, and wishes not by any proof that was offered. They showed, therefore, more credulity than the Christians did. And these unbelieving Jews, as they are called, are the very persons who were reproached for their want of faith. You may plainly see from this, that the faith which the Christian writers speak of is not blind credulity, but fairness in listening to evidence, and judging accordingly, without being led away by prejudices and inclinations."
It is thus clear that all forms of doubt are not considered, in the Bible, as sinful in themselves. One should not, however, conclude that because Christ did not condemn all forms of doubt, that doubt is to be regarded as an end in itself. One should deal with his doubts, but he should not deliberately seek to raise them just for the purpose of toying with them and for an intellectual thrill in solving them. Neither should one cultivate the attitude of mind which wants to stand off in a critical attitude which prides itself on its refusal to render a decision and make commitments. The passions of man are too ready to encourage us in deceptive rationalizations for one to play or toy with doubt (See Clark, Conscious and Unconscious Sin, p. 44.)
VI. THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHES THAT FAITH IS BASED ON EVIDENCE
The way in which the New Testament appeals for faith proves that it does not ask people to believe without evidence or contrary to the evidence. In the Gospel of John the appeal is made to miracles (John 2:11; John 2:23; John 3:2; John 20:30); works (John 5:35); the Father's witness (John 5:36-37); the witness of Moses and of the Scriptures (John 5:39.47); and the self-evidencing power of the truth (John 7:17). In the book of Acts in one sermon appeal is made to the evidence of prophecy (Acts 2:6; Acts 2:23; Acts 2:30-31; Acts 2:34); miracles of Christ (Acts 2:22); the resurrection (Acts 2:27-32); and the miraculous demonstrations then taking place (Acts 2:33). It is possible for men to ignore or reject the New Testament record and assert that these things are not reliable, but it is impossible for any informed student to be honest and say that by faith the New Testament means credulity.
VII. THE UNBELIEF WHICH IS SINFUL IN ITSELF
The passages enable us to understand how one kind of doubt and unbelief is sinful of itself, since it involves a rejection of or a refusal to give heed to evidence. Jesus taught that there is doubt which is sinful in itself, for He stated that the Spirit would reprove, or convict the world of sin "because they believe in me." (John 16:8-9). "Now, before any of you shrink back from the suppossed harshness of these words of Christ consider the value, the admitted value, of the principle on which they rest; and consider also that its establishment is due to Christianity. You will all agree that neglect of truth that it is in your power to obtain (and which is vital to life, J. D. B.) is sinful, and sinful in proportion to the value of the subject matter. This extension of the field of duty so as to include the field of knowledge, is one of the triumphs of Christian moral philosophy, to which modern scientific advance owes more than it is likely to confess. Aristotle said, 'All men naturally desire to know; our Lord said, in fact, 'It is the duty of all men to know,' and especially to know the highest of all truths, that of religion. If it is culpable for a young man to be ignorant of some book which he offers for examination; if it is more sinful for us who teach here to be ignorant of the subjects which we profess; if it is wrong to be ignorant of the laws of health; and, worse still, to be ignorant of the moral laws which bind man to man: how much more sinful than all is it to be ignorant of our relations to God! Supposing that truth respecting religion is within our reach, and as long as the least hope of obtaining it glimmers before us, we are committing a very grievous sin indeed in resting contented in ignorance. For by so doing we neglect the highest perfection of which we are capable; we distinctly determine to be worse than we have the power of being, less vigorous in our motives, less definite in our hopes of the future, less noble in our aspirations for ourselves and our fellow-men. For we determine to know less and think less of God, from whom all goodness flows, and in whom all hope of joy centers."
Those who are content with unbelief without making a serious, fair, examination of the credentials of Christ have by that very attitude judged themselves to be of a very worldly nature and uninterested in spiritual, eternal things. Those who think that there is no guilt in rejecting historical facts, such as those which show, among other lines of evidence, that Jesus is the Christ, seem to be blind to the fact that "most principles which men reject or accept can be viewed as historic facts, past, present, or future, or one, or all. Most principles which men accept or reject are, however apparently abstract, probably found only in some historic concrete. The wickedness of an assassination, a treason, a robbery, is a historical fact; and yet the perpetrators are bound to recognize and accept the truth, and obey the obligation that truth imposes.
"God is a historical fact through eternal ages. His existence, his administration, his incarnation, are all historic facts which only need in like manner to be properly authenticated to impose a corresponding obligation. The truth of Christ's divine mission clearly authenticates itself as other facts of history although it may impose obligations as much more imperative as it is a more stupendous fact; its rejection may aggravate guilt in the degree of the importance of its prevalence over the world; and that same rejection inexcusable in its nature, may produce ruin as a natural consequence of its rejecting the Redeemer and his redemption. And if the aggravation of the guilt of that rejection be proportioned to the importance of the prevalence of that religion, and that religion be for the redemption of the world from ruin, then does it follow, as by an involution, that the guilt of that rejection deserves the ruin in which it tends to involve the world. "
If a man be responsible for the guilty use of his hand, is he not responsible for a misuse of his brain?" And, after all, is not the hand used as an instrument of unrighteousness only because the brain and heart have thought unrighteous thoughts; planned unrighteous deeds; and called on the hand to carry out those plans? "If the unholy use of the eye be guilty, is not the dishonest use of the intellect? Are all our powers responsible save our truth-seeking faculty? And how know we that God has never propounded a test-truth to probationary men, by the acceptance or reception of which the honesty of each mans truthseeking faculty is infallibily decided? When such a test-fact is presented, the act of rejection reveals the reprobate, decides his moral ruin, and works a series of disastrous and responsible consequences. Such a test-fact the divine Incarnate does announce himself to be, and surely no more suitable test-fact in the universe can exist. For a discrimination am I come into the world, that they which see not the truth they seek might see it: and that they which see with a truth-avoiding spirit might be made, in fact, what they are in purpose, blind. John 9:39. Under that assumption, his rejecters are by himself and his apostles, throughout the New Testament, placed under the ban of moral condemnation. Rejection of him is the parent sin which produces all other sins, and prevents their expiation or pardon. 'He that believeth not shall be damned. Some are led away by the error of the wicked. There is a deceivableness of unrighteousness. There are those who deny the Lord that bought them. In fine, 'There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is death.' Nor do the New Testament writers ostentatiously display their friendship for the deniers of the great Test. Neither St. Peter, St. Jude, nor St. John speaks blandly of them. They know no innocent unbelievers, no excusable infidels. In fine, pleasant as the sunny theology may seem, which holds anti-Christian doctrine to be the venial error of a man as honest and as well off as believers, it has no authority in Scripture nor in reason. There is a solemn, awful side to God's word; a dark and terrible phase in God's moral system, at which it becomes us to tremble; nor can we ignore it wisely, any more than we can ignore the tragic depths of woe that lie entombed in the whole groaning creation that travaileth until now.
"Are there such sins as sins of the Spirit, in contradistinction to sins of the flesh? Is there any responsibility for the use or misuse of our intellectual powers? A murderer, a traitor, is guilty of sin, sin of the flesh. . .But what shall we say of the intellectualist that promulgates the sophism that led the murderer to the murder, and the traitor to his treason? The gross, external, muscular sinner is thus cruelly damned; while the refined, internal, cerebral sinner, though really the primely responsible, is glorified. Are we, then accountable only for the deeds of our hands, and not for the exercise of our brains? And all this resolves itself into the one great question, a question which the transiently great men of our day would do well to ponder--Are we in any way responsible for our moral beliefs?"
Has the unbeliever, regardless of how he may have performed some of his duties toward his fellowman, performed his duty to God? And if one has not performed his duty to God, and endeavored to get other men to do likewise, he has not performed his full duty to man. "Was reverence to the divine in his heart, prayer to the Supreme upon his lips, communion with the Holy Spirit in his spirit? Who was it that said, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart'. . . . Is it true, or is it not, that God is the great good; indifference to God the great apostasy; separation from God the great damnation? If these are truths they cannot be sacrificed in compliment to the good behavior of Henry Wright. They are not to be judged by Henry Wright; they it is that must judge Henry Wright. What right has any man to suppress all the high and holy intuitions that God has bestowed upon him„ to exclude the aspirations of the spirit toward the divine Spirit; to cast off fear and restrain prayer; to give heed only to those lower faculties that tell of matter and its properties, and then come forth to the world and proclaim that God does not exist? It was this suppression that made Mr. Wright the 'fool'. It was an evil heart of unbelief.' And we do class all 'skepticism' that rejects God as revealed to us 'as a certain mark of sinful folly.' Atheism is in itself a heinous sin. It is not a crime which man may punish, but a sin which God will judge. And the apostle truly and justly pronounces a final judgment upon "those that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of his Son."
VIII. THE SEEKER MUST LOVE THE TRUTH
Paul spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.' (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). They do not love truth therefore they are not attracted to it and even when they see it they hastily reject it and rationalize their reaction. When the truth about themselves is unpleasant they become offended and seek for the pleasant thing, even if it has to be a deceitful thing in order to be pleasant. They are like those who have "itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables." (2 Timothy 4:3-4). They also refuse to listen to the truth when it condemns the unrighteous things in which they find pleasure and which they are determined to continue. Thus they seek for some message which will assure them that the unrighteous thing is right and thus permit them to continue in it without being rebuked by their conscience. And thus it happens to them as it happened to some of the old of whom God said: "Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it." (Jeremiah 6:19). God sends such people strong delusions in that He has ordained the laws of man's heart and of morality, and that person who has no love for the truth and who lives in and takes pleasure in unrighteousness will unfit his heart for the reception of truth and fit it for the reception of strong delusions which comfort and assure him in his error and unrighteousness; error and unrighteousness which he is determined to maintain.