Last night I started reading Benefit of the Doubt by Greg
Boyd. The introduction of the book lays out much of what he plans to examine
more closely throughout the book, but I also think he raises some important
points that I would like to dig a little deeper into today.
My plan is to keep reading the book and to occasionally
write some blog updates about what he is discussing, but for today I want to
try and anticipate some of his arguments and share my thoughts on them and then
see if any of my opinions change as a result of the book.
I will start out by saying that I am a fan of Greg Boyd. It
is not so much his theology or his positions on several issues (I certainly don’t
agree with everything), but I really appreciate the intellectual approach that
he takes to his faith (which is a huge aspect of this book). He takes scripture
very seriously, even if he comes to different conclusions than other
theologians and pastors, even some of the more famous ones in the same
denomination. What I respect is the process that he utilizes to come to the
truths of God, and the strength of the foundation that he starts with. He
allows for questioning and exploration, all while keeping the core of Christ,
which is how I want to start my analysis.
The first point Boyd makes (and what will ultimately be the
thesis of the book) is that the only certainty that he is of Jesus Christ
crucified (1 Cor 2:2). This is the foundation of his faith, the one thing that
can’t be shaken. Pretty much everything else is up for examination and
analysis, but even that analysis would be pointless if it is not grounded in
the truth of Christ crucified.
To build on what I wrote yesterday, I think that you can
(and I assume Boyd does) expand on Christ crucified to also include Christ
resurrected. This is foundation of faith and really, truly is the one thing I
think a Christian must accept. Without the crucifixion and resurrection
Christianity is nothing more than lessons in morality, and I broke down the
folly of that.
Starting from the core of crucifixion and resurrection,
everything else is subject to examination, which is ultimately “doubt”. I put
doubt in quotes here because it can be an explosive and perhaps misunderstood
in this context. Doubt does not mean a lack of belief, but is much more subtle.
It represents more the questioning of what you have always believed and always
been told.
It is the flip side of a certainty-seeking faith. The second
main point that Boyd makes is to try and break down certainty-seeking faith. He
sees it as dangerous and ultimately destructive when it comes to knowing the
truth of God. Certainty-seeking faith will lock individuals into a certain set
of beliefs that cannot be changed and cannot be challenged. The obvious point
that makes is that there could be problems that arise if the first things
someone learns that they lock into can be easily countered. It would lead to
either a collapse of faith or a pushback against critical thinking or analysis
in all aspects of life.
The example he uses for certainty-seeking faith is the
absolute belief in the importance of all aspects of the Bible, every little
detail, being literally true. To me, this goes beyond seeing the Bible as the
wholly inspired word of God, but turns it into a literal document. Problems can arise when historical or
scientific scholarship challenges aspects of the Bible (for example, the
timeline of Roman leaders and the census as it relates to the birth of Jesus in
Luke). These questions cannot be
considered in the certainty-seeking faith. Boyd calls it a “house of cards” in
the sense that if one aspect of the certainty is proven wrong then the entire
faith crumbles.
This need not be the case. One can surely take the Bible for
the fully inspired word of God while also not accepting, for example, the
Creation story as literally true six days. In fact, this understanding of the
Bible (if not the Creation story specifically) has pretty much been the
historic understanding of the Bible until 200-300 years ago when there was a
rise of new fundamentalism. Belief in God and acceptance (with varying degrees
of skepticism) of science need not be in conflict. These are all things that
will be fleshed out more on my blog.
Another point that Boyd makes is to examine the idea of
being saved by faith. His question is what does this really mean? Saved by
faith in what? Does salvation only come by belief in certain things? What are
those things? What if you believe some of them but are uncertain about other
things? Are there a few things that need to be believed and can never be
shaken? What if you are a believer in Christ but have a confidence of faith for
a season? Are you no longer saved? And many other questions. For this, Boyd
goes back to his initial foundation, belief in the truth of Christ crucified
(and resurrected). Beyond that…
One final point that Boyd makes in the book is that he sees
certainty-seeking faith as a reason that people are not fully embracing faith.
The main point is that there are certain things people struggle with or cannot
fully embrace which will cause them to be on the outside looking in. If someone
is a natural skeptic or an inquisitive mind (a doubting Thomas?), there still
needs to be a place for them within the church. Christ has a plan for them too.
I look forward to reading more about this.
One thing he didn’t mention in the introduction that was
triggered in my mind is kind of the flip of this. Boyd sees certainty-seeking
faith as resulting in several faith positions that need to be held. I’m not
fully convinced this is the way that it works. I see it as more a few positions
that are firmly held and then a whole of things that they are certain they do
not stand for, which is the conflict that we often see playing out in public.
There is much more to this, and I look forward to seeing how
Boyd examines it. Should be a good book.
No comments:
Post a Comment