Certainty vs. Humility

The heat of battle.

I still remember the thrill of debating in primary school and high school. My preferred position was 3rd speaker on the negative team – your job was to tear apart the opposition’s arguments and restate your own as the obvious truth. 3rd speaker negative had the last word, the final say. I still remember the first time I got up and tore down the opposition’s arguments point-by-point. Their case lay in smoking ruins on the stage. You could almost taste the blood in the air. It was exhilarating.

 You’d sit tensely and then with joy and relief as the adjudicator informed a hall full of people that your team had indeed won a crucial argument such as that “dogs are better than cats”, or whether “school uniforms should be compulsory”, or as high school students definitively proving whether or not “people have a right to euthanasia”.

 In order to win you had to show the audience how your team’s case is really the only logical and sensible way to view the world. Your team alone had fully thought through the issues and implications. You don’t admit any loss of ground or wavering conviction or the opposition will pounce. You’re not there to dialogue with and convince the other team anyway. You’re there to win.

 Such is the cutthroat world of primary and high-school debating competitions. It’s disagreement as an extreme sport. And perhaps worryingly I think just a more overt or magnified way in which we can sometimes tend to approach more important issues. Things which we actually believe and have a personal investment in, such as faith and theology. I know this has sometimes been the case for me!

 Christians can seem to be caught between two camps – either to argue with un-budging certainty about most of our theological conclusions, or to avoid stating any clear belief on the issues for fear of offending or appearing arrogant.

 The Bible speaks to both issues I think. The writer to the Hebrews says in 11:1 that “…faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”. James 1:6-8 says, “the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind…he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways”.

At the same time Paul says in Romans 12:3 that “…by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned”, and in 1 Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” To what level of issues inside and outside the central gospel is it right to apply these different verses and their contexts?

 There must be a way to balance these things. How can we engage people in discussions about things of which we are personally certain, whilst having a humble approach and treating people with alternate views with respect? In many ways this is merely seeking to work out what Peter means in practice when he wrote, “…but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…” (1 Peter 3:15).

 I think the hard part is that I can often feel quite passionate about issues which I have studied, wrestled with, prayed over, and particularly which have had an important personal resonance with me. I suppose it can be confronting when positions I have come to hold to as truth relating to God and faith appear to be being challenged by others who don’t fully agree.

 But here’s perhaps the more interesting thing I’ve discovered: I’m infinitely more willing to sit down and work through opposite viewpoints with non-Christians than I am with my fellow Christians! Maybe it’s because I feel like as Christians we’re meant to be “on the same team”, and the truth seems so apparent to me that they should be able to see it.

 I’ve come to realise that that last sentence highlights two important things. The first is that when two people both have faith in Christ alone for their salvation, then we are “on the same team”, as it were. The Bible calls us brothers and sisters in Christ, with God as our father, and when what we are discussing are theological issues which don’t impact on the central truths of the Gospel then it’s important to remember that they are indeed of lesser importance. That we already have unity together in Christ. That He calls us to love each other as Jesus has already loved us.

 This should be the basis for respectful and loving dialogue. It changes the focus from engaging in an argument to prove my point to engaging in a discussion with the hope of both of us coming to a better Biblical understanding of the issue. My aim is not just to be right, but to benefit the other. The trouble with an adversarial approach is that it automatically makes the impenetrable defences go up, both for them and for me, resulting in both parties refusing to budge. A discussion involves a willingness to listen and to learn from the other person rather than just pressing your own point of view.

 This leads straight to the second point, that though I may have spent a lot of time working through and studying an issue, I should be careful of arguing (either explicitly or, more often, implicitly) that I have a full handle on the truth of the matter and don’t have anything to learn from others. It is a big call to believe that my finite mind has fully understood the infinite wisdom of God on a particular issue, and yet upon reflection my refusal to listen to the view of others at times in the past I think implies this, though I would be horrified to claim that in so many words.

N.T. Wright has often mentioned that when lecturing his students he would tell them to keep in mind that at least one third of what he had to say was probably deeply flawed – “The only problem is I don’t know which third! Otherwise I would do something about it!” Now some of your reading this may think “that figures!”, but I put it to you that this displays an important lesson in self-awareness and the limits of human knowledge and theological or academic understanding which we would all do well to keep in mind.

Can any even casual observer of debates between Christians help but notice that both sides will always claim to show their position clearly supported by the Bible, and maintain that the other side’s exegesis or hermeneutic to the contrary merely shows that they are not taking the bible seriously or dealing with it honestly. This argument annoys me even when otherwise I agree with the side making it!

 I find 2 Timothy 2:14-26 to shed an interesting light on this whole issue, because I believe it clearly presents the importance of both certainty and humility. In it Paul emphasises to Timothy the importance of maintaining true and good teachings of the gospel in a context where false teaching was everywhere. He says to not have anything to do with foolish arguments because they only produce quarrels. But he also goes on to outline how Timothy should act towards those who disagree with him: “…he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”.

 And this is what Paul said instructing Timothy on how to engage with those who held to false gospels in truth, gentleness and respect. How much more should this be our approach and our hope when discussing issues of theology of lesser importance with our brothers and sisters in Christ!

 Again, I’m arguing for balance in these issues. I believe it is good to study an issue thoroughly, reading up on it, examining scripture, praying about it, etc. I also believe that discussion amongst our fellow church members is vital, including with people who hold different points of view.

 I believe I need to weigh up the balance of evidence and by the measure of wisdom God has given me come to a decision which I can hold to in good conscience. And if I believe the issue is worth discussion, then to do so with humility, not ignoring the views of others but respectfully challenging them and inviting them to do the same to me, being open to learning from the perspectives of others and hoping that we can both come to a fuller, true and Biblical understanding.

Now, in terms of dogs vs. cats, I’m afraid to say that dogs are clearly better. This is actually universal truth, but in the spirit of this post please feel free to disagree.

No related posts.