The Purpose of Skepticism in the Church
This post is motivated by the question "Is there a purpose for Skepticism or criticism from within the church?" It is also motivated by the fact that an open approach to skepticism and intellectual engagement on issues related to the Church is what helped bring me to faith in Christ.
There are of course potential benefits and dangers for having skeptics who are vocal within the church. It can present a view of church disunity. It can present an image of a church that does not command with authority the loyalty of its followers, and suggest that perhaps people do not really believe what the leader is saying. It can also provide a space for disingenuous people to spread lies or sow doubt in an audience that is ignorant of the issues at hand. These are perhaps fair concerns. My purpose with this post is to try to define what is and is not Biblical skepticism.
From what I hear in old Hebrew Law when a person was being tried for a capital crime if the jury voted unanimously for the death penalty then the trial was called a mistrial. The reason for this was that if there were no dissenting voices it was assumed that the trial was somehow fixed, and no person was there to try and elaborate the other side. A person who is critical is there not to cause doubt, or to cause dissent essential but in fact to remove doubt. To ensure all angles have been covered. The Bereans searched the scriptures to check and see if what Paul said really was true, so as to remove their doubts. They did a critical and perhaps oppositional analysis. Paul said this was important. They were not trying to split up the church but actually trying to make sure what Paul was promoting really was Biblical. Having a nay sayer addresses the potential dangers or wrong things in a certain position, and if one is attempting to persuade one must always try to consider the position of the potential nay sayer. This was often a method Paul himself used.
The role of the critical thinking person in the Church was and is in my opinion to provide important insight and guidance as to what people ought to do in making difficult decisions or when thinking about difficult doctrines. As proverbs says the first witness seems right until the other presents his case, but if there is only one case presented what do we really know about the situation? Only one side of things being presented is more like pontificating. As a Protestant, this is something I think no church should have, and as a thinking adult, perhaps this way of speaking at least for me is a bit demeaning to my intelligence, and agency.
Another danger of neglecting to answer skeptics or criticism or other challenges within the church is that those skeptics and critics, or critical thinkers often find being neglected or ignored so frustrating they leave that particular church or the church altogether. This means a great resource for checking one's self to see if one is going the right way, or to see if one really does have good answers and a solid broad foundation to what one believes is left out. A church that is not self critical is in my opinion hypocritical. If the church cannot accept their own faults or admit them openly the place for trust on a human level is made smaller. I will have to admit that we have to be discerning about who are sincere skeptics and who are just out to "troll" pastors, or get their own way, however when people with honest questions or fears are turned away it is a hinderance to belief in the sincerity of the cause.
One of the challenges of the modern church I think is how does one deal with criticism personally. I know my pastor has said he receives so much hate mail, and it affects him quite a bit. He has said it is for at least partly that reason he limits his time on Facebook. I agree that it is not the most fun thing to read criticisms, and can really hurt one's confidence, or just be plain discouraging, however if we are able to answer the criticisms or point to materials which respond to the questions, where does that leave the skeptic on the charge that the church is disingenuous? I would have to say their mouths are at least partially shut. If one is able to answer critics with honest answers one can also gain a personal confidence in one's own view. The difficulty comes in the ability to separate critiques of one's view, a view held deeply and personally and moving people towards great acts for the Gospel, and a personal attack.
The ability to separate a criticism of one's deeply held belief from a personal attack is a struggle for all people in almost every culture at all levels of society, however the ability to engage challenges to one's position is a normal and fair expectation for most people in a modern world, especially those in authority like presidents, lawyers, professors, and the like. So why then do we sometimes make the exception for pastors? This is potentially a dangerous double standard. Are we aiming at respect by the world? No, but Paul's example shows us an important method of promoting the Gospel is reasoning in the synagogue and debating and reasoning with critics and important leaders, which means allowing our assumptions to be opened up for examination.
There are of course potential benefits and dangers for having skeptics who are vocal within the church. It can present a view of church disunity. It can present an image of a church that does not command with authority the loyalty of its followers, and suggest that perhaps people do not really believe what the leader is saying. It can also provide a space for disingenuous people to spread lies or sow doubt in an audience that is ignorant of the issues at hand. These are perhaps fair concerns. My purpose with this post is to try to define what is and is not Biblical skepticism.
From what I hear in old Hebrew Law when a person was being tried for a capital crime if the jury voted unanimously for the death penalty then the trial was called a mistrial. The reason for this was that if there were no dissenting voices it was assumed that the trial was somehow fixed, and no person was there to try and elaborate the other side. A person who is critical is there not to cause doubt, or to cause dissent essential but in fact to remove doubt. To ensure all angles have been covered. The Bereans searched the scriptures to check and see if what Paul said really was true, so as to remove their doubts. They did a critical and perhaps oppositional analysis. Paul said this was important. They were not trying to split up the church but actually trying to make sure what Paul was promoting really was Biblical. Having a nay sayer addresses the potential dangers or wrong things in a certain position, and if one is attempting to persuade one must always try to consider the position of the potential nay sayer. This was often a method Paul himself used.
The role of the critical thinking person in the Church was and is in my opinion to provide important insight and guidance as to what people ought to do in making difficult decisions or when thinking about difficult doctrines. As proverbs says the first witness seems right until the other presents his case, but if there is only one case presented what do we really know about the situation? Only one side of things being presented is more like pontificating. As a Protestant, this is something I think no church should have, and as a thinking adult, perhaps this way of speaking at least for me is a bit demeaning to my intelligence, and agency.
Another danger of neglecting to answer skeptics or criticism or other challenges within the church is that those skeptics and critics, or critical thinkers often find being neglected or ignored so frustrating they leave that particular church or the church altogether. This means a great resource for checking one's self to see if one is going the right way, or to see if one really does have good answers and a solid broad foundation to what one believes is left out. A church that is not self critical is in my opinion hypocritical. If the church cannot accept their own faults or admit them openly the place for trust on a human level is made smaller. I will have to admit that we have to be discerning about who are sincere skeptics and who are just out to "troll" pastors, or get their own way, however when people with honest questions or fears are turned away it is a hinderance to belief in the sincerity of the cause.
One of the challenges of the modern church I think is how does one deal with criticism personally. I know my pastor has said he receives so much hate mail, and it affects him quite a bit. He has said it is for at least partly that reason he limits his time on Facebook. I agree that it is not the most fun thing to read criticisms, and can really hurt one's confidence, or just be plain discouraging, however if we are able to answer the criticisms or point to materials which respond to the questions, where does that leave the skeptic on the charge that the church is disingenuous? I would have to say their mouths are at least partially shut. If one is able to answer critics with honest answers one can also gain a personal confidence in one's own view. The difficulty comes in the ability to separate critiques of one's view, a view held deeply and personally and moving people towards great acts for the Gospel, and a personal attack.
The ability to separate a criticism of one's deeply held belief from a personal attack is a struggle for all people in almost every culture at all levels of society, however the ability to engage challenges to one's position is a normal and fair expectation for most people in a modern world, especially those in authority like presidents, lawyers, professors, and the like. So why then do we sometimes make the exception for pastors? This is potentially a dangerous double standard. Are we aiming at respect by the world? No, but Paul's example shows us an important method of promoting the Gospel is reasoning in the synagogue and debating and reasoning with critics and important leaders, which means allowing our assumptions to be opened up for examination.
Comments