Customer Reviews

Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a short paperback, but a good piece of lucid writing. Newbigin spent thirty years in India as a missionary, and learned there how to talk about his faith to people who grew up with a different view of how the world is. Then he retired and returned to his native Great Britain, only to discover that his homeland had become a place in which had a different view of how the world is.

Newbigin spent another couple of decades learning about the changes that had occurred in society, as well as how the Gospel message fits in with this, and wrote this book at the end of his life.

The book describes with great clarity the impact of Cartesian ideas on our society ("Doubt as the path to certainty"), the correction provided by Michael Polanyi and others, and the Biblical picture of how we should think about knowing and believing. The book ends with a marvelous address in three directions: Newbigin defends his conclusions against Catholic natural theology, liberal theology, and fundamentalist theology. It is a really good book, and I recommend it highly. It is already changing the way that I think about apologetics.

But it also affects the way I think about my Christian discipleship across the board. Newbigin centers on the person of Christ. This quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer opens the book, and--now that I understand it better--sums up Newbigin's ideas well:

Faith alone is certainty. Everything but faith is subject to doubt. Jesus Christ alone is the certainty of faith.

Newbigin's little text from the final years of his life is a brilliant analysis of the history of religious epistemology. He critiques the spectres of Enlightenment rationalism that still dominates theological discussions today and offers an alternative form of knowing that withstands the scepticism of postmodernity.

He opens with a clever look at the worldviews of the ancient world. The certainty founded in the logos of Greek philosophy and that in the Israelite anthropomorphic God were suddenly challenged by the ultimate reality that was knowable in Jesus Christ. This led to Augustine's affirmation that he believed in order to know, an affirmation which Newbigin is essentially trying to resurrect.

Chapter 2 explores the Thomistic synthesis, in which natural theology and the proofs of God create a cleavage between truths demonstrable by reason and truths known only through faith. This, Newbigin says, was a mistake, because it implies that more sure grounds than the biblical narrative should be sought in the communication of the faith. This in turn led to the rationalist of Descartes which, he says, erodes inevitably into nihilism, because no knowledge can claim the kind of certainty that Descartes insisted was essential.

Chapter 4, the philosophical center of the book and foundation for Newbigin's epistemology, is an analysis of Michael Polanyi's writings. Polanyi argues that knowledge is "personal," that it is never objective and removed from the subject which claims it. Later in the book Newbigin will cite a helpful analogy from William James, that knowledge is like hanging on a breaking branch on the side of a cliff and deciding whether or not to leap to another branch. Knowledge involves personal commitment and risk.

The conclusion, then, is that biblical faith can not be defended through the wrong-headed doctrine of verbal inspiration, which rests on the foundation of Cartesian objectivism. Nor is it subject to the historical-critical challenge of liberalism, which, he says (with little explanation), is just a faith commitment of another kind. Instead, we believe in order to know, and faith in the person of Jesus is that hanging onto a branch which validates itself by holding us up.

The book is beautifully written, taut, and profound. If this is your first reading of Newbigin, you're bound to read more. I'm not altogether convinced that he has worked out a kind of religious knowing that is not just blind faith, though he says it is not. At some point, he would have to explain why a satisfying illusion is not equally as plausible as Christianity, or why Christianity isn't one. But truly a great read for all modern thinkers and church leaders.

James W. Miller is the author of God Scent

I spent this morning with two of life's great pleasures, a great cup of coffee and a really good book. The coffee was Kenyan Kiaguthu Peaberry roasted to the City+ level. Mmmm. The book is called Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt & Certainty in Christian Discipleship by Lesslie Newbigin.

If you knew me, you would've heard me talk about Michael Polanyi, the 20th century scientist and philosopher whose work was the subject of my Master's thesis. Newbigin's book is a great quick reference for the application of Polanyi's thought to the Christian life, and I highly recommend it. It's only 105 pages and is written in a very accessible style. I read the whole thing this morning.

If you're curious about how Christian thought fits (or doesn't fit, as Newbigin shows) into classical, modern, or post-modern ideas about knowledge, you should read this book. If you're one of those young evangelicals that is disenchanted with the hyper-rationalistic hyper-individualistic concepts of Christianity, you should read this book. If you want to figure out whether truth is objective or subjective, you should read this book. If you want to know what is really wrong with "fundamentalist" Christianity or with "liberal" Christianity (perhaps surprisingly, it's something they have in common), you should read this book.

A few weeks back, my friend Jon (who also introduced me to home roasted coffee) wrote an interesting piece for his blog about a recent trend among young evangelicals in which many are departing to more liturgical versions of Church, especially various Eastern forms (by the way, I think the Emergent Church is sort of a wimpy American-consumer version of the same trend). It's all a sort of pre-modern postmodernism. If we all read Polanyi (or Newbigin's short version of Polanyi), this trend would evaporate.

Newbigin shows here that Christianity simply cannot just append itself to other plausibility structures, but is itself a plausibility structure which claims a place of judgment over the others. We do not make Christianity acceptable by fitting it into modern epistemological systems. This is because Christianity is not just a set of propositional beliefs, but a comprehensive personal reality (Christ), embodied in the life and message of the Church.

Newbigin's book "Proper Confidence" sets out to bridge the divide between the Protestant fundamentalist and the liberal theologian. To do so, Newbigin traces the history of human thought as essentially mankind's attempts to reach the elusive level of knowledge characterized by "absolute certainty." Capitalizing on the fact that the Christian tradition has dominated the advancement of Western culture, Newbigin documents the rise of the new arche which would supersede the classical worldview. This new starting point, based on the belief that Jesus was the divine logos made flesh would lead to the belief that certainty could be established by faith and human reason. However, due to the rise of skepticism, faith and reason no longer were viable options for determining that which was certain. Doubt became the preferred starting point for ascertaining certainty, and faith became at best a probability. Yet Newbigin shows that this form of logic leads to nihilism, in which nothing at all can be certain. The postmodern society of today is a testament to this genre of thinking. How then are we to view the writings of scripture if certainty is no longer an option? Newbigin takes a unique approach to the difficult topic of scriptural inerrancy with his thesis that it is less important for a Christian what he believes about the Bible than what he does with it. Essentially, the crux of the matter lies not in how we formulate a doctrine of biblical authority, but rather how we allow the Bible to function in our daily lives. For Newbigin, faith is the only certainty because faith involves personal commitment.

A crucial point of this book is that all forms of attempts at ascertaining certainty depend on a fundamental starting point that is unable to be questioned. I found it particularly interesting when he showed that the historical-critical method itself is not immune to being undercut by its own foundational assumptions. These under what Newbigin calls a "creed of modernity," and while the method may claim that the biblical writings were a product of a particular culture, the historical-critical method itself is a product of a culture that was obsessed with determining "absolute truth." However, the faction of Protestant fundamentalism, which seeks to maintain that absolutely every statement made in scripture is factually inerrant, is a product of the same modern movement. I myself am a product of what one may call fundamentalism, and I wholeheartedly agree with Newbigin's conclusion that a defense of scripture mounted on the very concept of truth which seeks to dismantle it is unwise. I have personally discovered that attempting to maintain the rigid view of scripture that claims every statement is inerrant with problems that arise concerning textual variances and cultural standards is virtually impossible. The only other option seems to be nihilism, in which nothing at all is certain. This is obviously unacceptable, and this is the point in which I most strongly agree with Newbigin. A new concept of attaining certainty is needed; one that does not depend on an Enlightenment concept of an "absolute." Newbigin tries to gives us one with his concept of faith, characterized by the belief that the word of God is Jesus Christ, as a path to certainty.

While I certainly agree with Newbigin that all attempts at attaining certainty that fundamentally depend on a concept of "absolute" knowledge are inadequate, I am uneasy with the logical conclusions of Newbigin's thought. Concerning verbal inerrancy, Newbigin claims that this idea is a "direct denial of the way in which God has chosen to make himself known to us as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". He says that the Holy Spirit is what drove the authorship of Scripture, however this did not make the words the authors wrote infallible. Rather, they were driven to understand the truth as a whole by the leading of the Spirit. As far as readers of scripture today, this truth is not "imposed" on us, but is rather reached when we honor it and love it in our hearts as truth.

The fundamental problem that I see with this form of reasoning is not necessarily what Newbigin's theory says is possible, but rather with what it is unable to discount. Essentially, a form of "faith based" relativism can be drawn from his statements. While Newbigin would undoubtedly shy away from this interpretation of his thesis, I see no other viable conclusion. As mentioned earlier, Newbigin claims that the vital component in interpreting scripture is how we apply it in our lives. However, the key word here is "apply." For example, what if the claim was put forth that the teaching of scripture warrants the murder of those who disagree with our view of baptism? Newbigin would undoubtedly say this is an incorrect interpretation, and if one were truly living according to a faith that understood Jesus as the Word of God, this conclusion would cease to be an option. However, any claim that Newbigin would make about the application of a faith-based certainty relies on a foundational presupposition! This example is perhaps a bit extreme, yet it clearly illustrates my point. In his attempt to offer an alternative to arriving at certainty independent from an "absolute," Newbigin opens up the possibility for a myriad of possible interpretations of scripture. As much as he would like to avoid postulating an objective "absolute," it is necessary to have some form of a hermeneutical standard if we are to interact intelligently with the text of scripture. His thesis that faith-based certainty should be enacted in how we live our lives may be indeed be feasible; however the need for some form of absolute is needed in order to avoid slipping into the mire of relativism.

Another point of contention that I have with Newbigin is his treatment of reason in relation to the revelation of Christ. He claims that his view of certainty does not entail a "blind leap into the dark," but rather a personal response to a personal calling. He rejects the idea of "reason" as a means of arriving at knowledge that does not depend on faith. In this I agree, as it has been thoroughly demonstrated that any attempt to ascertain "certain" knowledge depends on presuppositions that are ultimately to be taken on faith. Newbigin asserts that given Jesus is the "Word made flesh," then all truth claims must originate from this starting point; which is taken on faith. I do not contest this as a viable option; however I do not see how Newbigin would defend this as a superior alternative to other faith-based presuppositions. For example, if I were to say that the Grand Duke of Neverland has revealed to me the five basic principles of joyful living that determine how I live my daily life, I would claim that I accept this by faith. Newbigin would alternatively claim that faith in Jesus Christ as the "Word made Flesh" should determine how we are to live our daily lives. Strictly in relation to one another, there is no way to claim one is superior to the other. Again, this demonstrates the possibility of relativism that can be introduced by Newbigin's views. Perhaps reason offers a way to interact with these faith-based claims to demonstrate one's superiority over the other. Newbigin puts forth the conclusion that reason and the revelation of Christ are one in the same, and that it is "improper" to validate the claims of Christianity with reason. This is legitimized by his assertion that we cannot come to know God by reason. In this I would agree, however I would not make the assumption that reason necessarily attempts to know God. This is a "straw man" argument, and I would respond that reason should not be understood as a path to God, but rather as a means of understanding the natural order of creation that God has imposed on the cosmos due as a means to validate certain truth claims about God. This assertion ultimately depends on faith, and would be legitimate under Newbigin's categories of faith-based certainty.

Perhaps the most interesting portion of Newbigin's book was his defense against the critique of Protestant fundamentalism, of which I am intimately familiar. Of the fundamentalists, Newbigin writes that "they are seeking a kind of certainty that does not acknowledge the certainty of faith as the only kind of certainty available". While I agree with this statement, his claim that Christianity is not determined by logical certainties but the "total commitment of fallible human beings" is not so easily applicable. Newbigin's insistence that the Bible is the work of sinful, infallible human beings whose misunderstandings needed correction does little to inspire the kind of "faith-based" commitment Newbigin is advocating. Newbigin's supposition that it is unfeasible to impose the idea of "absolute" certainty on the Bible is sound. However, how are we to apply the teachings of scripture in our lives if we are not sure of what it is the scriptures teach? Even if we are reasonably sure of a teaching of scripture, one could come to the exact opposite conclusion and still have Newbigin's foundation of "faith." This weakness in Newbigin's concept of certainty mars his critique of theological liberalism. He claims that liberal theology's greatest weakness is that it assumes that "we are the explorers" of the vastness of God, and run the risk of arriving at conclusions that are a product of our own minds. Again, this critique of liberalism depends on Newbigin's presupposition that it is indeed erroneous to believe that we are the explorers. Either way, Newbigin's denial of liberalism is ultimately hampered by the lingering relativism inherent to his theology. If all certainty is solely based on faith, then who is to decide the limits of how far "liberal theology" can go with its interpretation of scripture?

I found Newbigin's concept of a completely faith-based certainty intriguing and compelling for the most part. He offers a refreshing alternative to the skepticism-based certainty that seeks to divine a completely objective "absolute" with his assertion that the "Spirit of God" enables us to "draw out the meaning of what has been given to us" as the kind of certainty on which a Christian may rest. All forms of systematic reasoning take for granted certain things without argument, and that is their ultimate downfall. However, I believe the direction that Newbigin heads with his faith-based certainty ultimately leads to a form of relativism. In chapter 4 of his book, Newbigin affirms that there exists an objective truth (e.g. God), however all our means of reaching that truth must rely on faith. Yet this logic fails to answer the question "why Christianity?" If what he is saying is true, then a Christian claim to faith-based "truth" about God has no way of asserting itself over an alternative form of "faith-based" truth. I fundamentally am unable to accept this as a viable option. While Newbigin elucidates one of the most fundamental issues plaguing truth-claims, I believe that he ultimately fails to provide a satisfactory answer for determining certainty without sliding into a form of relativism.

I just completed Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship by Lesslie Newbigin. It gets my four star rating. This little book(105 pages) is of tremendous help in reflecting on apologetics in a postmodern West. The usual Newbigin fusion of Christo-centric, missions-oriented, impeccable scholarship, and concern for faithful Gospel witness all are here. In addition, Newbigin takes on a Cartesian approach to the defense of Christianity that has pervaded Western Christian thinking and must now be seen for its inability to fulfil God's purposes in the world. In his chapter, "Through Faith Alone," Newbigin says, "The reasonableness of Christianity will be demonstrated (insofar as it can be) not by adjusting its claims to the requirements of a preexisting structure of thought but by showing how it can provide an alternative foundation for a different structure (93-94)"

Newbigin is, as this new century goes by, the kind of pastor-missionary-theologian that we need to consider. I find his writing of immense help. While I prefer to read Newbigin while reading Spurgeon or Ryle at the same time (outside of the box thinking tempered by clear, orthodox Protestant preaching), I still do like to read him and end up preaching better as a result. He excites my devotion to the Christian and Biblical vision of the Church in the world for God's purposes in the world. And in Proper Confidence he demonstrates a keen insight into how "to commend the truth of the gospel in a culture that has sought for absolute certainty as the ideal of true knowledge bu now despairs of the possibility of knowing truth at all... (93)"

I have read a lot of Christian books about the end of modernism and the beginning (or imminent demise) of postmodernism, mourning the losses and probing the resources that this shift means for the Christian. There's a startling consensus among many: that we won't miss modernism too much but that postmodernism is fraught with both opportunity and danger. And this quest has led me through thickets of nasty prose, clunky terms, and allusions to theorists I've never heard of before and want to forget as soon as I do.

Lesslie Newbigin's book is fourteen years old at the time of this writing, but it is easily the best primer on Christian epistemology I have ever read. It's short. It's clear. It treats each great intellectual movement with respect, pointing out its strengths. It's informed by a pastoral (or, as he says, missionary) heart. I had encountered most of these ideas elsewhere, but this book pulls them all together and articulates that consensus I mentioned earlier--I cannot think of one thing I'd heard elsewhere and wish he'd said. Pastors, college or grad students, professors, avid readers--this is the main book you need on how the Bible and the Gospel intersect with today's intellectual culture.

The last chapter is the best. Newbigin shows how the flaws in the broader culture have insinuated their way into Christian movements. He defines his stance (which I think is perhaps the only legitimate one for a Christian in response to the postmodern critique of modernism) against Catholic natural theology, Protestant fundamentalism, and liberal theology. Acknowledging the gifts each bring to the Christian community, he nevertheless points out how each has crippled itself by compromise with merely human elements.

In the end, things are simpler than they seem. God calls us to discipleship. We know anything of importance, really, because we have heard His voice talking to us.

Offers a critique of how both fundamentalists and liberals exhibit an "improper" confidence, as both give way to a post-Enlightment understanding of the nature of truth. Very helpful overview of philosophy, epistemology, and very, very faith-affirming to boot!

A wonderful essay all in all, and quite pithy at points. I only wish it were longer.

Newbigin shows how both the Enlightenment project and many Christians in its wake make the error of seeking absolute certainty on (purportedly) neutral ground. All worldviews require unprovable faith commitments, and the sooner Christians leave behind those of Descartes, his logical heir Nietzsche, et al., the better.

While Newbigin does a fine job of demonstrating the necessary priority of faith and faith as the only possible ground of certainty, I wish he had added a little more about what it means to recognize this and live by it.

Essentially asserts that, since knowledge is difficult to come by, and since certainty is virtually impossible because all experience is subjective, that the Bible should be taken as historically accurate.

Asserts that believing that Jesus actually rose from the dead, requires the same amount of faith as believing that 2+2=4. Because we only 'really know' that 2+2=4 because we are willing to accept our current society's definition of '2.'

Ignores that this same philosophy can be applied just as easily to defend *any* other system of faith.