Critiquing: #015 — A pastor losing his faith writes in. Tom responds to personal questions

June 7, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Pastoral Questions — Faith Crisis — Forgiveness — Church Community — Spiritual Guidance

---

Episode Assessment:

Metric	———	Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode addresses theological and pastoral questions accurately, although personal interpretations are evident.
Degree of Coherence	B-	Logical structure is maintained, but some answers could be clearer in their conclusions.
Absence of Fallacies	B	Generally free of logical fallacies, though a few arguments rely on anecdotal evidence.
Degree of Evidence	C+	Uses scriptural and experiential evidence, but lacks comprehensive theological or academic support for some claims.
Degree of Testability	C	Claims are mostly subjective, making them difficult to test or verify empirically.
Rational Confidence	B-	Confidence in the advice given is reasonable, but some suggestions may not be universally applicable.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence

The content often leans heavily on personal anecdotes and interpretations, which may lack broader theological or academic substantiation. For example, Tom’s response to the question about integrating a new hermeneutical approach to the Bible focuses on personal experiences and suggestions, such as reading specific passages repeatedly. While these are valid, they do not provide a comprehensive framework or scholarly references that could bolster the advice given. There are many Bible readers who follow such practices yet end up on opposites side of central doctrines.

“Try once a day reading the whole of Isaiah 40 to 55, for maybe three weeks, once a day for three weeks or six weeks. Start with Isaiah 40, just go straight through until you’re almost bored and familiar with it.”

2. Degree of Testability

The subjective nature of many claims and suggestions makes them difficult to test or verify. For instance, the recommendation to immerse oneself in large chunks of scripture and expect transformative results lacks empirical testability. Establishing a rigorous method to test the efficacy of Bible reading would be a good start in the direction of testability.

“Read Romans every day for a month. And he said, ‘You mean a chapter a day?’ He said, ‘No, the whole thing, every day.’”

---

Argument #1: Purpose of Being on Earth as a Christian

Premises:

1. Christians are meant to glorify God.
2. Glorifying God can be achieved through various roles, including homemaking and simple living.
3. Small acts of faithfulness are valuable in God’s eyes.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, fulfilling one’s role, no matter how small, glorifies God and is significant.

Counter-Argument:
The argument presupposes that all roles are equally valued by God without considering the possible broader impact of more public or significant roles. It also does not address the potential for personal ambition and growth in faith through seeking larger roles. One might argue that striving for greater responsibilities and influence could better utilize one’s gifts and bring more glory to God.

Argument #2: Forgiving Oneself and Others

Premises:

1. Forgiving oneself is part of the broader need to forgive others.
2. God’s forgiveness is the context within which we learn to forgive ourselves.
3. Prayer and pastoral care are necessary for dealing with significant forgiveness issues.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, forgiving oneself requires understanding and accepting God’s forgiveness, often facilitated by prayer and pastoral support.

Counter-Argument:
The argument assumes that forgiveness is always a spiritual or religious issue and may overlook the psychological aspects of forgiveness. A purely theological approach might not fully address the complexities of personal guilt and self-forgiveness. Incorporating psychological counseling alongside spiritual guidance could provide a more comprehensive solution to the problem of self-forgiveness.

Argument #3: Honoring Abusive Parents

Premises:

1. The commandment to honor one’s parents is practical and includes supporting them in old age.
2. Honoring parents does not mean ignoring their flaws or abuse.
3. Practical support can be given without condoning past abuses.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, one can honor abusive parents by providing necessary support without pretending they are without flaws.

Counter-Argument:
This argument might fail to consider the emotional and psychological harm continued contact with abusive parents can cause. Honoring parents should not come at the expense of one’s mental health and well-being. In some cases, maintaining distance might be necessary for personal healing, suggesting that honoring abusive parents could take different forms, such as emotional forgiveness without physical or financial support.

Argument #4: Repentance and Relapse in Sin

Premises:

1. Genuine repentance involves a change of direction and ongoing effort.
2. God’s forgiveness is limitless and always available to genuinely penitent sinners.
3. Overcoming repetitive sins may require external help and adjustments in one’s life.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, a person can be in active repentance even if they relapse, as long as they continually seek forgiveness and make efforts to change.

Counter-Argument:
The argument might underplay the importance of actual behavioral change in demonstrating genuine repentance. While seeking forgiveness is crucial, without tangible changes, the cycle of sin and repentance can become an excuse for continued wrongdoing. Emphasizing accountability and measurable progress could strengthen the process of repentance and ensure it leads to real transformation.

Argument #5: Faith Crisis and Biblical Interpretation

Premises:

1. A fundamentalist view of the Bible can lead to a crisis of faith when challenged.
2. A non-literal interpretation can harmonize faith with modern understanding.
3. Exploring different spiritual practices can help restore faith.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, adopting a new hermeneutical approach and engaging in diverse spiritual practices can alleviate a faith crisis.

Counter-Argument:
The argument assumes that moving away from a literal interpretation will resolve a faith crisis, but it might not address the underlying issues of trust and belief. For some, a non-literal approach can feel like compromising their faith’s integrity. Additionally, the suggested spiritual practices might not be sufficient to address deep-seated doubts and cognitive dissonance. A more thorough exploration of theological foundations and direct engagement with challenging questions could be necessary for a lasting resolution.

---

These arguments and counter-arguments illustrate the complexity of theological and pastoral issues addressed in the episode, highlighting areas where more rigorous evidence and logical coherence could enhance the discussion.

◉ Addressing Argument #5:

Embracing Doubt: The Rational Approach to Faith

The very notion of a “crisis of faith” implies that doubt is undesirable. However, rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence. If the perceived evidence is at 70%, the proper degree of belief for the rational mind will be at 70%. Doubt needs to be embraced. Faith, defined as a degree of belief that exceeds the degree of the evidence, has no place in the epistemology of an honest seeker.

A “crisis of faith” is often portrayed as a negative experience, one that must be resolved to return to a state of unwavering belief. This perspective, however, undermines the fundamental principles of rational inquiry and intellectual honesty. Doubt is not a sign of weakness or failure; rather, it is an essential component of the rational mind. It drives the search for truth, compelling individuals to evaluate evidence critically and adjust their beliefs accordingly. When the evidence for a proposition is perceived to be 70%, a rational individual will hold their belief with 70% confidence. This alignment between belief and evidence is crucial for intellectual integrity.

Doubt should not be feared but welcomed. It ensures that beliefs are not held dogmatically but are open to revision in light of new evidence. This approach is particularly important in matters of faith, where evidence is often complex and multifaceted. Embracing doubt allows for a more nuanced and flexible understanding of one’s beliefs, accommodating the uncertainties and complexities inherent in the search for truth.

The concept of faith, traditionally understood as belief without or beyond the evidence, poses a challenge to this rational approach. If faith is defined as holding a degree of belief that exceeds the supporting evidence, it contradicts the principles of rational inquiry. An honest seeker of truth cannot justify such a stance, as it entails committing to a belief with a certainty that the evidence does not warrant. This form of faith can lead to dogmatism, where beliefs are held rigidly despite contrary evidence.

For the honest seeker, faith must be redefined or abandoned. If it does not mean belief in the absence of evidence but a mapping of a degree of belief (credence) to the degree of the evidence, then the less muddied term rational belief will suffice. This is more aligned with the principles of rationality, where beliefs are proportionate to the evidence available. It encourages an openness to new information and a willingness to adjust beliefs accordingly. This form of rational belief is compatible with intellectual honesty, as it recognizes the limitations of human knowledge and the ongoing nature of the search for truth.

In this framework, a “crisis of faith” is not a failure to be overcome but a natural and valuable part of the intellectual journey. It signifies a moment of reevaluation, where previous beliefs are scrutinized in light of new evidence. This process can lead to a deeper, more resilient understanding of one’s beliefs, grounded in a commitment to truth rather than certainty. Embracing doubt and aligning belief with evidence fosters a dynamic and honest epistemology, where beliefs are continually refined and strengthened through critical inquiry.

In conclusion, the traditional view of faith as unwavering belief without evidence is incompatible with the principles of rational inquiry. Doubt is not an adversary to be defeated but an ally in the search for truth. For the honest seeker, belief must be proportionate to the evidence, and faith must be redefined as a degree of belief that is proportionate to the degree of the available evidence. A “crisis of faith” is not a sign of failure but an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding. By embracing doubt and aligning belief with evidence, individuals can cultivate a rational and honest epistemology that remains open to the complexities and uncertainties of the world.