The opportunity to write this manuscript came chiefly as the result of two extended speaking engagements. The bulk of the material was written to complement the Spring Lectureship which I presented at Western (Conservative Baptist) Seminary in Portland, Oregon. Those lectures, entitled "Christian Doubt: Toward Resolving a Painful Problem," comprised most of Sections I and II of this volume.

The remainder of the manuscript (Section III, in particular) was completed during a lectureship in an adjunct study program at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, England. One of the lectures there was similarly devoted to the subject of doubt.

I benefited personally from my interaction with those from both groups during this lecturing and writing. The week at Western Seminary, at the invitation of Professor Gerry Breshears, provided an excellent time of interaction, including meetings with administration, faculty and students. The three weeks at Oxford provided an intensely personal setting for the integration of living and learning. The interaction with the students was especially gratifying. I would like to deeply and sincerely thank all those who made possible both lectureships, and the writing of this manuscript.

Incidentally, if it is possible to judge from the responses of those involved in these and other discussions on this topic, the issue of doubt and its resolution is one with which many Christians struggle. It is my hope that this volume will be especially helpful for those who are either working through such uncertainty themselves or who are assisting others in such a process.

Gary R. Habermas Oxford, England 11 August 1988

Uncertainty is common to human existence, but dealing with it is complicated both by the fact that there are different species of doubt and because each of the types frequently involve more than just that one area. Thus, there is a tendency for doubt to "spill over" into other elements of human experience. Theoretically, the fact that persons are whole rather than fragmented argues that various doubts involve the entire person to some extent. Practically, one usually notes that such is often the case; doubts overlap and more than one type is frequently present. Yet, proper identification of the primary form is still a major step in the healing process.

Consequently, dealing with doubt is an interdisciplinary undertaking. While factual doubt may require the expertise of the apologist or philosopher, emotional and mood-related doubt will have more to do with the psychologist, psychiatrist or counselor. Questions pertaining to the will are perhaps best addressed by theologians. And the more that I deal with the subject, the more I recognize that sociological, anthropological and educational insights are examples of other areas which are also crucial at various points. So there are certainly elements of doubt which require a multidimensional effort.

Accordingly, two important disclaimers need to be offered at this point so the reader can be sure not to misjudge the present product. First, while I am more confident in dealing with areas having to do with apologetics, philosophy or philosophical theology, I am far from being an expert in psychiatry, psychology or counseling. Here I must rely on my own study and interaction with professionals in the other disciplines. And addressing an audience which involves persons who are trained in these areas, I can only admit my lack of expertise and open myself to the observations of others.

However, at the same time, if the subject is to be approached by a single individual at all, it will almost assuredly be a person who cannot deal in an expert way with all of these subjects and specializations. So I will go on record by saying that, while my own training is in the areas just identified above, I will at least endeavor to address the others for the sake of attempting to minister to hurting people. It is this need to be practical that motivates me to write on a subject which could possibly be the single most common problem among Christians. So if I err in my conclusions, I humbly ask your forgiveness and invite your comments.

Second and somewhat related, I am not qualified to offer any psychiatric or psychological counseling and my comments should not be construed as attempting to do this. My purpose is to deal with the phenomenon of doubt and while this frequently involves such conditions as depression, anxiety or medical factors, it must be understood that I am only qualified to offer advice concerning such healing of various forms of Christian uncertainty, not the psychological or medical conditions such as those just described. I would recommend that the latter be dealt with by a Christian professional in that area. But at any rate, the treating of these last issues is not within my expertise.

It is this last issue of healing that is the primary concern in this treatment. Theory will certainly be presented and is crucial at several important junctures. But it is my chief desire that Christians will be better informed and able to both deal with their own times of doubt and those of other believers.

B. Common Misconceptions Concerning Christian Doubt

Doubt is very frequently viewed by Christians in a negative light. One common attitude is that relatively few believers have this problem (and those who do usually keep quiet about it). It is often charged that true believers never doubt at all or that being uncertain of one's beliefs is always bad and cannot produce any positive results. These and other misconceptions appear to be fairly widespread.

1. Christian Doubt is Uncommon

If one works very long with doubting Christians, one may get the strong impression that many believers who have experienced uncertainty seem to think that they are a distinct minority. Similarly, one is frequently impressed that believers often do not wish to admit the presence of such doubt, a view which probably contributes much to the continuance of the mistaken notion that they are alone in this problem.

It was mentioned above that there is some reason to believe that doubt of various kinds is an almost universal fact of human existence. Os Guinness asserts, "It is not primarily a Christian problem, but a human problem . . . . The root of doubt is not in our faith but in our humanness."5

So how common is Christian doubt? The "humanness" of the phenomenon would suggest that it still is a very regular problem. Several popular treatments make this point clearly. Mark Littleton answers the question by saying that, "Doubt hangs its hat on all Christians. None can honestly say they've escaped it."6 John Guest holds that all Christians were once agnostic in that they moved from unbelief to belief. Some Christians remain in a semi-agnostic condition even after salvation.7 Stephen Board thinks that there may at least be some truth to the saying that unless a person has never doubted, he has never truly believed. In this sense, the Christian's intellectual struggle can produce one's deepest convictions.8

More technical writers also agree, such as Karl Barth's statements that all Christians struggle with doubt. Speaking of a character trait which causes such uncertainty, he states that "no Christian (and likewise no theologian) can altogether rid himself of this flaw."9 Later, he points out that "No theologian . . . should have any doubts that for some reason or other he is also a doubter."10 Interestingly, Barth also muses at how easy it is to question God's existence on occasion, even when one knows better.11 Clark Pinnock adds: "I know what it is to doubt and question. And I suspect that every Christian who takes the time to think seriously about his faith does so, too."12 Later he warns the new believer to expect to experience the same problem.13

In terms of popular statistics, Bill Bright writes that of the tens of thousands of persons who have attended Campus Crusade's various training institutes, up to 25% regularly indicate their doubts concerning their own relationship to God.14 Even if this was the only subject which Christians wondered about, it would still be a significant estimate. But when other matters of uncertainty are also counted, such as questions pertaining to unanswered prayer, or why Christians suffer, or theoretical questions about the faith, or mood-related issues, I think it is plain that few (if any) Christians completely escape the far-reaching claws of doubt. Although by no means constituting scientific surveys, when I question my large introduction to philosophy classes I regularly find that about 70-90% of all of these hundreds of students are even willing to publicly admit that they have experienced doubt in some form.

At any rate, it should be apparent that the attitude that doubt is uncommon among Christians misses the mark. Especially when the many faces of doubt are remembered, it would appear to be futile to deny the problem. In fact, there seem to be good reasons to hold that doubt may be one of the most widespread problems among Christians today. This provides all the more reason to attempt to solve the dilemma.

2. True Believers Never Experience Doubt

Some assert that real believers never doubt, since doubt is said to be the opposite of faith. It should help us at this point to remember our opening definition, for while it is true that uncertainty affects faith, they are not opposites. The counterpart of belief is unbelief, while we have seen that doubt might be described as hesitation between two positions. So initially it must be pointed out that, at least by definition, there is nothing which keeps true believers from struggling with uncertainty or nothing which causes doubt to contradict faith. It is true that doubt may progress to where it may challenge one's very faith, but the failure to believe is unbelief or disbelief, not doubt. Guinness notes that the attempt to make doubt into unbelief is a contradiction in terms because it appears to make one's questioning choose sides (in this case unbelief) when doubt in its very essence remains between two positions. 15

Barth is in agreement at this juncture, asserting that "doubt does not mean denial or negation. Doubt only means swaying and staggering between Yes and No. It is only an uncertainty . . . ."16 Littleton concurs:

But doubt is not the opposite of faith . . . . doubt suggests that there is a lack of faith somewhere, but a person can doubt and still have a perfectly sound trust in God. Doubt is rather a state of uncertainty, a spiritual fork in our road.17

But for many Christians who might raise this second objection, there is a more important consideration than the issue of definitions. The question of what Scripture teaches is crucial here and it also supports the view that true believers can experience doubt. In both the Old and New Testaments, believers clearly express wide ranges of questioning, especially on such topics as pain and evil, God's personal dealing with His people and the issue of evidence for one's belief. On each of these subjects, doubt is clearly expressed by prominent believers.

For example, the story of Job is well known, but I think few realize how this righteous man actually charged God with misconduct on several occasions, and just how pointed some of his criticisms were in actuality.18 Likewise, several psalmists also experienced serious quandaries and even, on occasion, cried out to God not just about certain problems, but actually blamed Him with what they considered to be mistreatment and His breaking of His covenant with Israel.19

While these Old Testament passages certainly evidence some of the facts of doubt enumerated earlier in this chapter, such expressions are not absent from the New Testament, either. In an apparently little known episode, John the Baptist was in prison awaiting what would later be his death (Matt. 11:1-11; Lk. 7:18-30). He sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask a twofold question. John wished to know if Jesus was the Messiah or if he should be looking for someone else. Such is simply an amazing incident and is very similar to some queries about which we hear in the last half of the Twentieth Century. It is difficult to know exactly what was on John the Baptist's mind, but it is very likely that his doubt was prompted by emotional circumstances surrounding his imprisonment.

Jesus' response is just as remarkable. Instead of rebuking John for his doubt, Jesus told John's disciples to return and relate to him the miracles which Jesus was performing (Matt. 11:4-5: Lk. 7:21-22). Jesus had basically answered John the Baptist's question concerning His messiahship in the affirmative. And after an exhortation not to be offended because of Himself, Jesus called John the greatest man ever born (Matt. 11:6-11; Lk. 7:23-28). So far from chastising John, Jesus both answered his questions with evidence and then complimented him during the time of his doubt! This narrative should convincingly show us that believers sometimes do have times of uncertainty and questioning.

Another New Testament example is the passage which describes the outspoken challenge of "doubting Thomas" (Jn. 20:24-29), who declared that he would not even believe unless he first saw the resurrected Jesus himself. Although Jesus rebuked Thomas for his failure to believe the eyewitnesses who had seen him after His resurrection, the point here is that Thomas had expressed a rather serious doubt (if not unbelief20). Jesus, once again, provided some evidence but warned Thomas that such "special" treatment ought not be sought after. For whereas John the Baptist presumably believed after Jesus' miracles were reported to him by those who had witnessed them, Thomas refused to believe the same kind of testimony, requiring a personal appearance of Jesus.

It would appear to this writer that the Old and New Testament examples are sufficient to show that true believers in Scripture have doubted, thereby buttressing the earlier definitional points. But in a strange turnabout, however, our discussion indicates that the objection that true believers never doubt could itself actually cause two major problems. First, this misconception can cause great harm to believers who do experience uncertainty. As Guinness states, "No misunderstanding causes more anxiety and brings such bondage to sensitive people in doubt."21 I recall a case where a young man came to see me in emotional turmoil because some friends had told him that his doubts of assurance obviously proved that he was not a Christian. Some simple techniques for dealing with emotional doubt (which are presented below) were sufficient for him to deal with this situation. As is my usual practice, I checked with him several times afterwards, the last occasion more than a year later and he testified that he had not experienced any real doubt again. But this was potentially a long and painful situation for him if the untruths had not been corrected.22

Second, this objection actually overlooks an important concern about doubt. That is, all doubt ought to be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly. Just because uncertainty plagues most believers at some time is no reason to take it lightly. And just because doubt is not the same as unbelief does not mean that it cannot affect one's faith adversely, especially if it is allowed to grow and spread. By God's grace, such questioning needs to be identified and dealt with accordingly.

3. Christian Doubt is Always Bad

Another frequent claim is that doubting is always a negative sign and that it cannot ever bring about positive results. But this is the exact opposite of the conclusion reached by Christian researchers who have both fought against doubt themselves and have observed the healing process in others. Charles Hummel asserts that, "A stronger faith can emerge through a siege of doubt; both holiness and faith are forged in the fires of temptation."23 Virtually every observer agrees that not only faith, but Christian growth and greater certainty, conviction, and service can result (and often does) from successfully dealing with one's uncertainty.24

In our answer to the last objection, it was pointed out that several believers in both the Old and New Testaments experienced doubt. In some instances the complaints against God appear out of the ordinary and amazingly strong. Is there any evidence from these cases, in addition to the scholarly testimonies above, which indicates that doubt can actually yield good results? In the case of Job, his encounter with the Lord brought about the resolution of his doubts, repentance and trust in God, leading to his multiple blessings (Job 42). Even though there are numerous Psalms which express doubts, sometimes it is the very questioning and despair which is turned around to a positive attitude of praise (Ps. 42:5-6, 11; 43:5).

In the case of John the Baptist, it is presumed that he was triumphant over his doubt, for in spite of it (and even during it!) Jesus pronounced his great compliment about John (Matt. 11:11; Lk. 7:28). Thomas' more radical doubt, in spite of Jesus' rebuke, led to Thomas' glorious recognition of Jesus' deity (Jn. 20:28).

So even though doubt is a serious matter whenever it occurs, it can clearly lead to good results including the triumph of faith and worship of God. In the case of Thomas, if church tradition is to be believed at this point, it was doubt which led to this disciple's later commitment of his life to ministry in the Middle East, where he was martyred. At any rate, it appears to be evident that doubt can lead to positive growth in the believer's life.

C. Conclusion

Christian doubt, defined as a lack of certainty concerning the teachings of Christianity or one's relation to them, is a very common and painful problem affecting many believers. The subject is complicated by the misconceptions and caricatures concerning doubt, which tend to militate against the finding of solutions. The interdisciplinary nature of the issue also makes it a difficult matter, for Christian doubt is very frequently not just a factual issue, as is widely believed. As a result, doubt needs to be identified as to its "species" and dealt with accordingly.

The chief purpose of this volume is both to help believers work through and conquer their own doubt and to provide them with means to help others who are dealing with it. The curing of this dilemma for many Christians would not only assist them in experiencing peace on a crucial topic, but would hopefully also free them to turn their energies to service for Christ.

Endnotes--Chapter I

1However, diakrino is also translated in other ways such as "contending" or "judging." Other related words include meteorizomai, dialogismos, distazo, aporeomai, diaporeo and psuchen airo. They can all have similar meanings such as doubt, uncertainty, despair or unbelief. But there is some variation among the terms. Meteorizomai indicates an anxious state (but is used only once in the New Testament (Lk. 12:29), while dialogismos is used of the evil thoughts which emanate from the sin nature of man.

2If a personal illustration (for that is all that it is) is at all helpful, in my regular discussions on the subject over the years, I can only recall one person ever telling me that he had never doubted. Then just recently, as I reminded this individual of his statement made a few years ago, he hastened to point out that he had only been speaking of one very specific form but that, including all elements of uncertainty, he had experienced it frequently in his Christian life.

3Leon McKenzie, "The Purpose and Scope of Adult Religious Education" in Handbook of Adult Religious Education, edited by Nancy T. Foltz (Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1986) p. 11.

4C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952), p. 123.

5Os Guinness, In Two Minds: The Dilemma of Doubt and How to Resolve It (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 39.

6Mark R. Littleton, "Doubt Can Be a Good Thing," His (March, 1979), p. 1.

7John Guest, In Search of Certainty (Ventura: Regal Books, 1983) pp. 36-36.

8Stephen Board, Doubt (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p.3.

9Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, translated by Grover Foley (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 128; cf. p.122.

10Ibid., p. 131.

11Ibid., p. 123.

12Clark H. Pinnock, Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p. 107.

13Ibid., P. 117.

14Bill Bright, How to be Sure You are a Christian (U.S.: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1972), p.10.

15Guinness, pp. 28-29.

16Barth, p. 124.

17Littleton, p. 1.

18See Job 7:11; 10:3-4, 13-14, 20-21; 12:6; 13:21; 14:6; 19:7; 27:2.

19For some of the "tougher" variety of complaints, see Ps. 44:9- 26; 60:1; 82:2; 89:38-39.

20I think that it is certainly possible that Thomas was not a believer before meeting the risen Jesus, especially in terms of his own statement about his refusal to believe (Jn. 20:25) and Jesus' addressing him in terms of his (new?) belief (Jn. 20:29). But this is a very difficult question. If Thomas was not a Christian, this would affect the use of this example in this section.

21Guinness, p. 27.

22It should be noted that both here and in other places in this book where personal accounts are utilized, various factors have been purposely changed to protect the identity of the individual(s) involved. Particular details, such as gender, reactions and even some symptoms are frequently altered specifically so that persons may not be identified. As a result, descriptions which appear to correctly describe a particular person are accidental in that no case is left unchanged. However, an effort has been made to keep those characteristics which are integral to the illustration so that a real correspondence between the problem and the answer is preserved.

23Charles E. Hummel, Doubters Welcome (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1964), p. 16.

24Barth, p. 122; Pinnock, p. 108; Guinness, p. 16; Board, p.3; Guest, p. 139; Littleton, pp. 1, 10-11.

This scenario is typical of many types of uncertainty in that the doubter perceives a situation where negative results are likely to occur no matter what happens. Also instructive here is the importance of demonic influence. Lewis warns believers that two opposite errors frequently occur when this subject comes up: either demons are disbelieved or they are stressed too much, as if all evil proceeds from their activity. Lewis retorts that demons "are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."5

On this subject, the more balanced biblical position is to recognize the influence of demonic forces as a major factor (Eph. 6:10-18) and to deal with them accordingly. In his popular pastoral treatment, Erwin Lutzer recommends several steps in such a process:

(1) confess one's sins and pursue fellowship with God. In fact, Lutzer states that "The most important defense against demonic attack is righteousness, along with an effective use of the Word of God."

(2) Believers must exercise their delegated authority (from Jesus Christ Himself) to battle the temptations of Satan, for he must leave the Christian when confronted in the power of Christ (Js. 4:7; Col. 2:15). Lutzer points out that often Satan must be dealt with directly by the citation of scriptural truths.

(3) Christians must be patient and endure the conflict, realizing that results do not always come immediately. The testimony of many believers is that, ironically, it is in such times of trouble that God can really work in our lives.6

So the original temptation, the corresponding human sin nature and the continuing openness to Satan's promptings combine to form the root cause of mankind's basic problems, including doubt. And if sin is the source, then, conversely, God and His teachings are the answer. It is not the purpose of this chapter to begin a discussion of cures for doubt,7 but suffice it to say that the testimony of the New Testament is that the healing of an individual's problems is performed by God and not by the person.8 This will be a crucially important truth to remember when the subject of a person's part is set forth in subsequent chapters.

B. Examples of Doubt

As pointed out above, it will be the chief purpose of this chapter to list numerous examples of uncertainty, divided under the three grouping briefly identified earlier (factual, emotional and volitional). Yet, the purpose is not so much to attempt to categorize each of these types per se, but rather to provide numerous different instances in an attempt to help in the process of identifying doubts as a preliminary step in the healing process. Once again, it is not specific questions which are entertained here, but the general categories which give rise to them.

1. Factual Doubts

a) factual foundations: A common form of uncertainty is that which questions the underpinnings of Christianity. Such might frequently occur in the case of new believers who have not thought through many of the main issues yet or even with more mature believers who are not sure of the facts. A common scenario would be the inability to answer critical accusations against Christianity due to one's lack of knowledge on those subjects. In particular, the major issues here might concern the nature of the gospel or other central beliefs.

b) sidetracked by pseudo problems: This variety of doubt occurs when believers allow themselves to be concerned about issues which not only are not central to the truthfulness of Christianity, but sometimes do not make any substantial difference whichever view is correct. Pinnock notes that such usually occurs when strong positions are taken where Scripture may be noncommittal and where it is therefore legitimate for believers to hold differing views.9 Examples here might include the date of the earth or specific problems in eschatology.10

c) questioning intellect: This form of factual doubt is frequently caused by the type of personality which enjoys problem solving. For some persons, to be constantly studying an issue provides the needed motivation to seek creative answers, thereby leading to intellectual growth. In other words, this type of uncertainty actually spurs some individuals to work out dilemmas which interest them, or to get to the root of practical applications with the intent of finding which solutions actually work.

d) system confusion: Board utilizes this description to indicate doubts which arise due to a believer's allowing his world view to be influenced by non-Christian systems or where the believer does not correctly "label" a teaching which would only be true if an entire rival view was also true.11 Many doctrines are only as accurate as the world-view in which they are held. Doubt may come from taking at face value statements such as those which proclaim that belief in God is for weak persons who need a "crutch" in life, instead of investigating the evidence behind the claim itself.

2. Emotional Doubts

a) psychological causes: The most common cause of emotional doubts (and perhaps even all types of uncertainty) stems from psychological states such as anxiety or depression and, in particular, moods which persons frequently undergo. In fact, in a certain select sense, psychological doubt as a whole might be termed mood-related. At any rate, this brand of questioning often masquerades as factual doubt but must be dealt with in a different manner. I have spoken to many individuals who assumed that their problem had to with evidence for faith, only to discover that the true cause was their attitude towards the subject. Earmarks of this sort of quandary will be set forth in Chapter IV.

b) medical causes: Doubt can also come from any number of medical factors, including internal conditions such as manic depressive states or diabetes on the one hand, or externally prompted conditions caused by the consumption of alcohol or other types of drugs. To be sure, it is frequently not an easy matter to decide which of such factors are internally or externally motivated. But while the central cause is medical in nature, doubts which originate in this manner manifest themselves in chiefly emotional patterns. In one particular instance, a young graduate student was constantly in need of counseling and tended to dominate my office hours. Although we were definitely experiencing some success, I noticed some symptoms which I thought should be checked. As a result, I finally referred him to our counseling center for treatment. There he was diagnosed as being manic depressive and was given appropriate medicine. The lesson here concerns the needed input of the medical community on various issues surrounding the treatment of doubts.

c) faulty view of God: To have a wrong concept of God can be very instrumental in the formulation of doubt. And, of course, while it could be argued that no believer would have a perfect view of God, some specific patterns of thought are potentially more harmful than others. For instance, to believe that God does not answer prayers, especially during times of stress or that He is morally responsible for pain will frequently lead to constant personal crises. So if, as Guinness states, assurance depends on our view of God and His faithfulness,12 then this is certainly an area which needs constant cultivation and development in the believer's life.

d) childhood problems: Experiences which one undergoes in his younger years can have a profound affect on later doubt. For example, child abuse in various forms can make it very difficult for one to accept God's love. Two cases of this nature stand out very vividly in my mind. Both involved very intelligent young women who had been abused as children, one sexually and the other physically; the latter still had at least one visible scar to witness the fact. Both were willing (and even eager) to discuss the problems involved but they had many sessions of discussion before beginning to get control of the situation. Both women struggled with how God could ever love them; it was very difficult to convince them otherwise. Eventually the former, a student, found great relief through the love of her husband, family and close friends. The latter experienced healing through principles shared later.

e) old wounds: Somewhat related to the previous type of doubt derived from childhood problems, this variety is caused by painful situations throughout life. Breaking up with a lover, the death of a loved one or the betrayal of a friend are examples of wounds which could cause a person to wonder if he can fully trust God. In many respects the results of such questioning are similar to that in the former category.

f) judging by feelings: A very common problem, especially with Christians who lack assurance of salvation, comes from reactions based on one's feelings. "Sometimes I don't feel saved" or "I don't have the same feeling which I used to" are regular fare for the counselor. In fact, the feeling that Christianity might not be true after all may besiege all believers at some point. Here again, one is reminded of Uncle Screwtape who challenges young demon Wormwood:

But there is a sort of attack on the emotions which can still be tried. It turns on making him feel . . . that all his religion has been a fantasy.13

One vivid case of this type concerned a pastor of a prominent southern church who called to explain to me that his Christianity did not feel as vibrant as when he first became a Christian. Although trained well in seminary, he fell into some of the same pitfalls which he had probably helped others through over the years. After a few discussions he realized that his questionings were caused by his emotions, which allowed him to identify the area on which he most needed to work. Only then did he experience relief.

g) need for attention: In some cases, the expression of doubt is most obviously due to the need for friendship and love, often from one who feels that these are somehow lacking in his own life. Such is most often expressed by a person who apparently wishes to dominate the counselor's time and grows to depend on the interaction. The doubt could certainly be real, but the need for companionship attention and love14 could be even greater, to the point where the problem never seems to get solved.

h) lack of sleep: A commonly overlooked cause of doubt can sometimes be remedied as simply as getting a normal amount of sleep. A biblical example here is Elijah, who, when he experienced depression, laid down to sleep. After Elijah had rested, an angel recommended food (I Kings 19:4-6).

One man who came to see me was experiencing some rather disconcerting doubt. He was a leader in the Christian community, the type of person whom one might think would be embarrassed if others were to know why he was visiting me. After a little discussion we pinpointed the type of doubt as emotional and afterwards probed for the variety. It became obvious that he was suffering from a lack of sleep. After making an effort to get more sleep on a regular basis (including going to bed one day and waking up two days later!), he began doing much better. Soon afterwards he left the area for a new ministry but kept contact with me over a long period of time. Virtually every phone call I asked how his doubts were coming and he reported that everything was "back to normal." This just illustrates how cures for doubt are not always the typical ones!

i) peer pressure: I have long thought that one of the categories of doubt which is seldom mentioned but is extremely important is the pressure exerted on believers to be more moderate in their views. This assault is not a frontal attack, but is one which can continue to build up to quite a persuasive drone in its call to stop believing old "wives tales" in favor of "modern" approaches. To be more like our peers is often a desire which is difficult not to heed, at least in part. In fact the belief (whether true or false) that few other intelligent persons hold our position can produce devastating results, especially over a period of time. Our emotions are particularly vulnerable. But the doubt which is produced thereby generally professes no new facts, just the same old temptations to change.

j) identifying with fiction: To read fictional writings can sometimes cause us to be confronted with different kinds of ideas and persons. Plays, television and movies about fictional persons, times and places are even more graphic in their representations. But there is a subtle temptation here to identify with these characters and view issues through their eyes. I personally recall watching a popular fantasy movie where I was so caught up in the evil being experienced by one of the heroes that it temporarily colored my own perception until I perceived what should have been quite obvious: I was witnessing someone else's conception of the issues. But if such subtleties are allowed to go unchecked, one could experience corresponding emotional doubts.

k) Christian hypocrisy: Doubt can sometimes be caused by observing the beliefs and actions of fellow believers. Barth lists religious wars, persecutions, inquisitions and questionable stances on such issues as "slavery, race, war, women's rights, and social justice" as examples of the potentially offensive beliefs and behaviors of Christians which can, in turn, cause doubts.15 However, while to view what is believed to be unbiblical positions is disheartening, it does not directly deal with the issue of the truthfulness of the Christian world view at all. Perhaps we need to be confronted even more frequently with man's failures; such could be a reminder of both the sinfulness from which God has rescued us and provide some impetus for further action.

l) forgiven sin: The fear that one's sins have not really been forgiven is a cause for doubt in many believers. More specifically, the idea that one has committed the unpardonable sin so that one cannot be forgiven strikes even more fear in the hearts of others. One young man who called me expressed just this latter sense of horrifying fear. He believed that the very fact that he had suffered doubt from time to time meant that he had committed the unpardonable sin! This person needed to learn that some of the popular conceptions about doubt are themselves mistaken. So while such quandaries can have factual ramifications, they perhaps more frequently are manifested in emotional terms. And while a good exegesis of relevant Scripture portions may certainly be called for as a crucially important part of the cure, the emotional elements will frequently have to be dealt with, as well.

m) anxiety about the future: It is not enough for Christians to be worried about the present. To be honest, anxiety concerning the unknown future has probably been a cause for fear in most believers at some time or another. For some, it is manifested in the query as to whether they can really "hold out" until the end. Again, a study of the Scripture and perhaps some treatment of the emotional portion is needed in order to show that this fear is misplaced.

n) judgment and Hell: Even in believers one frequently encounters the uncertainty that, after all, perhaps it is still the case that one could have done everything that the Bible requires for salvation (as far as one knows) but still be sent to Hell. If informal surveys can be trusted at all, this fear is very widely experienced by many Christians at least at some time. And, as in the cases of the previous two types of fear, both Scriptural exegesis and treatment of the emotional factors may be required.

3. Volitional Doubts

a) weak faith: Oftentimes a Christian wishes to increase his faith or perhaps desires to conquer some problem (like doubt) but simply thinks that he is unable to do so because it is too difficult to believe any further. In biblical terms, this individual can perhaps be said to be wavering between two positions (Js. 1:6-8). During my own period of doubt, I would have said that one of my chief struggles was with the issue of how to increase my faith.

b) immature faith: Sometimes faith suffers from a lack of development, often due to factors in operation when a person first committed his life to Christ and from the corresponding wrong ideas concerning that experience. For instance, perhaps the individual was very young at the time of his conversion, or later wondered if he was at all coerced during the process. Others are troubled that perhaps their hearts were not totally committed at that time. As Michael Griffiths describes the problem:

But becoming a Christian is not simply a matter of reciting a magic formula at the request of an evangelist, but the answer of the heart and will in believing response to the invitation of the Lord Himself.16

While there are frequently emotional factors present, the key issue here is one of the will: did the individual truly commit himself to Christ? Thus, whether immaturity was present or not, that is not of chief importance. The issue is one of the surrender of the will. And when a person is truly uncertain as to whether he trusted Christ, I usually encourage him to pray and express his trust in the Lord once again, telling Him that if he is already a Christian, then this is simply a prayer of further commitment. Some may disagree with this practice, but I personally find nothing here that appears to be unbiblical.

c) lack of growth: Some uncertainty can be caused by the believer's failure to grow in his Christian life. It is as if the person realizes that further commitment might require getting serious with the Lord. But for whatever reasons, the decision not to progress in one's walk with the Lord can lead to uncertainty. One major reason for this dilemma is that when one does not grow he is not availing himself of much of the means by which doubt may be avoided. As in a human relationship, a lack of growth can even signal a drifting apart and can lead to various questions. But conversely, growing in our commitment is an excellent means of doubt prevention.

d) self-sufficiency: This kind of uncertainty arises from an attitude of arrogance towards God. Devoting an entire chapter to the topic, Guinness identifies this quandary as occurring when a Christian begins to decide that his will is to be preferred above God's will. This desire for autonomy manifests itself in various signs that the individual is attempting to break his allegiance to the Lord. Guinness likens it to a man whose bickering with his wife and public criticisms of her is indicative of an internal decision which has been at work.17

e) repentance: Not to be confused with the emotional anxiety which may come from wondering if one's sins have been forgiven, this category refers to a lack of repentance from one's sins. When one has unforgiven sin in his life, this can certainly contribute to a sense of separation from God, encouraging doubts. And it is the decision (either implicit or explicit) not to repent of these sins that can keep a person from having peace.

I recall an older man who came to discuss doubts. He was obviously depressed and did not even want to talk about his problem. After speaking to him several times and with a counselor who had also dealt with him, it was discovered that he was apparently involved in an entire lifestyle of sin at the time of his coming to see me. Later the man admitted that this was very possibly the reason for his lack of assurance, but he did not appear to be very concerned about changing. As far as I know, neither did his uncertainty change.

In another case, a young woman who had an outstanding Christian testimony began experiencing rather severe doubts after she decided that her marriage relationship was too binding. And again, as long as she remained in her rebellious state, the doubts also remained.

f) difficulty of application: One of the most common causes for the continuance of volitional doubt is, strangely enough, that believers are reticent to apply the biblical steps for healing, even after they are known. Since adopting the proper principles when one is hurting (and often right during the doubt) takes concentration, some conclude that it is easier to apply the steps only sporadically. Just like it may hurt to pull weeds, sometimes it is also difficult to deal with these problems in one's life. But one of the most frequent comments I hear is that, when biblical steps are applied the doubt is assuaged and, conversely, when they are not, the uncertainty returns.

I do not conclude that the various treatments will always work on each type of doubt, largely because the personal factors vary so much. But I cannot remember ever having anyone tell me, after applying them, that they do not either ease or heal the problem. And it should be mentioned again that we make no claims that these methods are the only correct remedies. In fact such a claim would be far from the truth. Other researchers have presented additional biblical remedies which can also lead to healing.

C. Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was twofold. Initially, the overall cause for doubt was discussed: sin. Mankind's sin and the continuing openness to Satan's temptations are the chief background from which doubts (as well as many other problems) emerge. Dealing with this temptation is a major way to combat doubt. While some initial suggestions have been given here, the subject will again be approached in subsequent chapters.

The main portion of this chapter was devoted to the subject of identifying various types of doubts. Over twenty different examples were placed in the three general categories with which we are functioning (factual, emotional and volitional doubt to). The intention here was not so much to provide either absolute categories or an exhaustive list of examples. Rather, the purpose was to produce a variety of samples so that individuals can perceive both how widespread doubt is and get some idea about how to identify their type(s) of uncertainty.

We ended this chapter on the note that some persons continue to experience doubt because they decide, for whatever reasons, not to apply the biblical remedies. At the same time, many who have applied biblical maxims to doubt have often found healing. Now this is definitely not to assert or imply that every case will be solved. It must be said bluntly that some people are not healed. But when it is remembered that there are many individual factors, such as (but not limited to) the proper identification of doubt and the need for faithful (and correct) practice of biblical principles, such is not surprising. But I would not be fair if I did not also say that I have witnessed a high percentage of persons who have at least been helped, if not healed, by God's grace and power.18

It is by no means being pretended that the methods utilized here are unique. Other researchers in a variety of fields have come to quite similar conclusions and likewise report that positive results are attained.19 Additionally, other scholars have utilized different methods with success, thereby indicating that no one approach necessarily has a "corner on the market." Certainly such exclusivity is not being claimed for the methods suggested in this book.

Endnotes--Chapter II

1Other authors have also analyzed doubt into specific categories. Board identifies four groupings (pp. 4-16), which basically include the three I just listed plus another which I think is a sub-category of one of them. Guinness prefers seven divisions (Chapters 5-11) which I, again, think can be included under three headings. (Compare Bright's three categories of commitment, pp. 12-45.) But it is very important to note that the point here is not to arrive at an objective number of families of doubt or to attempt to prove that a certain figure is correct.

2See Barth, pp. 125-128; Guinness, pp. 67-184; Littleton, pp. 9- 10; Pinnock, pp. 109-111; Board, pp. 4-16; Wolfe, p.75.

3Guinness, pp. 44-45; cf. Barth, p. 125.

4C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), pp. 126-127.

5Ibid, Preface, p.3.

6Irwin Lutzer, You're Richer Than You Think (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1978), Chapter 9.

7Incidently, the biblical responses to doubt in subsequent chapters will include suggestions which can be used with Satanic temptations, as well.

8Paul is particularly adamant about the inability of man to solve his own problems. See II Cor. 4:7; 10:3-6; 12:9-10; Eph. 6:10; Phil. 2:12-13; 4:13.

9Pinnock, p. 109.

10Of course, this does not mean that Christians could very well have strong convictions (and strong emotions!) on these (or other similar) subjects. Neither does it mean that a person is not justified in defending his own view, but, due to the very nature of the issues, somewhat less dogmatism might be warranted.

11Board, pp. 9-14.

12Guinness, p. 33.

13Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, p. 142.

14It is precisely for this reason (and others) that counselors must take proper precautions while counseling members of the opposite sex. It is crucial that problems of this nature be handled before they even start to develop.

15Barth, pp. 70-72.

16Michael C. Griffiths, Christian Assurance (London: Inter- Varsity Fellowship, 1962), p. 18.

17Guinness, pp. 70-72.

18Perhaps a note is needed concerning the use of the word "healed" since it has already been indicated that it is "human" to doubt. Thus, it is not being claimed that these persons never doubt again, but that the specific form which plagued them before had been resolved. In other words, their "problem" had been solved (even over long periods of time), although issues may still arise periodically. Follow-up shows this to be the case.

19Several of these sources will be documented in the endnotes of the following chapters.

f) Lastly, the burial of Jesus is quite a natural event. Consequently, of all of the facts included in the gospel, this one (in one sense) requires the least amount of evidence. Consequently, relatively few critics dispute the fact. Thus, while the point to be made here is not an actual evidence for Jesus' burial, it is still a consideration in its favor. Simply stated, a burial is the normal result of a death. As such, the facts which confirm Jesus' death would seem to lead naturally to His burial. Additionally, the evidence which we have strongly favors such an event.

3. The Resurrection of Jesus

a) The trustworthiness of the New Testament (and of the gospels, in particular) provides support for the literal and bodily resurrection of Jesus. Although critics frequently question several portions of the gospel narratives,26 these passages can be defended successfully. The general unanimity of the New Testament witness and the reliability of these texts produce a strong case for Jesus' resurrection.27

b) The pre-New Testament creeds also strongly support the teaching of Jesus' resurrection. Not only is this event reported in this literature,28 but it is utilized as evidence for other central Christian doctrines.29

One creedal passage in particular, I Cor. 15:3ff., provides a very powerful argument for Jesus' resurrection. Most critics who have investigated this subject date this tradition from the 30s A.D. and, further, think that Paul received it from the apostles themselves, probably Peter and James.30 As such, this text provides crucially early and eyewitness testimony for Jesus' resurrection appearances.31

c) Numerous extra-biblical sources from about 30-180 AD either teach or imply the facticity of Jesus' resurrection. At least ten total sources are concerned with the topic of what happened to Jesus after His death, with each of these actually mentioning either the resurrection or Jesus' exaltation to heaven.32 Yet, to be quite honest, there are questions about several of these sources which keep this from being a strong evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. But the data is still useful in a study of this subject.33

d) A much more important argument in favor of Jesus' resurrection concerns the failure of the various alternative theories which have purported to explain this event in completely natural terms. Not only have each of these theories been refuted by the known data,34 but the critics themselves have generally rejected each of them. While Nineteenth Century older German liberals critiqued these theories individually, Twentieth Century critical scholars have usually repudiated them as a whole.35 While the absence of alternative theories by itself does not necessarily prove Jesus' resurrection, that critics have generally even dismissed these naturalistic attempts because of their inability to account for the known facts is a strong indication of the problems facing such skeptical approaches.

e) But not only have critical attempts to explain the resurrection failed, there are very important evidences in favor of the facticity of this event. Factors such as the eyewitness testimony which has not been explained naturally, the changed lives of disciples who were willing to die specifically for their belief in the resurrection, the early date of the proclamation, the empty tomb and the testimonies of two former skeptical unbelievers (Paul and James, the brother of Jesus) are examples of the powerful arguments for the literal resurrection.36

f) If the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth, there may even be some evidence present which indicates that He was raised from the dead. There is no bodily decomposition on the linen, meaning that the body was not in the cloth for very long. Additionally, the chief pathologist who investigated the shroud has testified that the condition of the blood stains indicates that the body was not unwrapped. Lastly, it is our view that the evidence indicates the cause of the image on the material to be a scorch from a dead body. So the absence of a body which was possibly not unwrapped and a scorch from that dead body could provide empirical, repeatable evidence for Jesus' resurrection.37

g) I think that the strongest argument for the resurrection of Jesus is a case which can be based on the minimal historical facts alone. In other words, I think that even if one utilizes only those facts which are known to be historical and which are recognized as such by skeptical scholars, there is still enough data to show that Jesus literally rose from the dead. This reveals that the resurrection can be established by the information known to be historical by both skeptics and believers alike.38

There is simply an incredible amount of evidence for Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead. As the major event in the Christian faith which involves the supernatural working of God, the believer is on solid factual grounds with this occurrence, the corroboration of which can be approached and documented from any of several angles. On a practical note, when so many events are reported in Scripture, it is by the grace of God that it is this center of faith (I Cor. 15:12-20) which has received this degree of confirmation. As such, there is much relevance here for the subject of factual doubt, as we will perceive below.

4. The Deity of Jesus Christ

a) We will not further belabor the subject of the trustworthiness of the New Testament but will just state here that if the gospel texts are accurate, Jesus unquestionably claimed to be deity. This is evident from numerous passages in all four gospels.39

b) Jesus' pronouncements and His actions reveal that He spoke and acted as God. His claims to deity are perhaps best seen in the self-designations "Son" in the context of speaking of God the Father, "Son of Man," His references to God as "Abba," and His answer to the high priest when asked if He was the Christ, the Son of God.40 Further, His activities such as His proclamations that persons would be judged specifically by how they responded to His message of salvation and His claim to have the authority to forgive sin (which was judged by the Jewish scribes who were present to be a prerogative of God alone) are also important indicators of His own convictions in this area.41 Together, His claims and His actions are strong arguments that Jesus taught that He was, indeed, deity.42

c) In one of the strongest arguments for the deity of Christ, Royce Gruenler points out that, utilizing only a minimalistic list of Jesus' evidenced sayings as assembled (and accepted) by radical New Testament critics themselves (and which contain none of the explicit Christological utterances which the gospels attribute to Jesus) one can still prove that Jesus was conscious of His own deity. In other words, even in the critically ascertainable synoptic gospel passages which "liberal" critics almost unanimously believe to preserve the authentic words of Jesus, we still find that He claimed divine authority. Thus, there is no necessary reason to distinguish the Jesus of the minimal authentic sayings from the Jesus who makes the lofty claims found in all four gospels. Jesus claimed divine prerogatives in both cases.43

d) While it is frequently claimed that the earliest church did not believe that Jesus was deity, a study of some of the early creeds reveal that this is not the case. They ascribe titles to Jesus such as "Christ" (or Messiah), "Son" and "Lord." And lest some challenge the meanings of these titles by claiming that these terms do not infer deity but some lesser role for Jesus, some of the contexts (such as Phil. 2:6-11) reveal exactly the opposite.44 The early church proclaimed Jesus as deity even to the point of being "pre-existent" and "equal with God."45

e) Numerous extra-biblical sources, although certainly later than the creedal sources just discussed, also plainly refer to Jesus as deity. At least three non-Christian writings call Jesus divine, while four others relate that early Christians believed this about Jesus.46 The earliest non-New Testament Christian writers clearly refer to Jesus as deity, including specifically calling Him God on numerous occasions.47

f) Since Jesus proclaimed Himself as deity, as revealed by both His teachings and His actions, and since the earliest church also held that He was deity, the question of verifying the teachings of Jesus is crucially important. It may be argued that Jesus' resurrection from the dead was the chief sign (miracle) which confirmed the truthfulness of His claims.48

After viewing the factual basis for the death,49 burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ, we have found that the evidence for each portion of the gospel message is extremely strong. As such, we have a firm foundation on which to address the issue of how we might make use of these facts in the treatment of doubt.

B. Applying Facts to Factual Doubt

1. Simple and Compound Doubt

We began this chapter with the assertion that uncertainty which is factual in nature (or even primarily factual) is generally satisfied by the relevant evidence or other data. In other words, this sort of state is treated chiefly by a study of the appropriate grounds for faith.

Guinness expresses the issue this way:

Faith does not feed on thin air but on facts. Its instinct is to root itself in truth, to earth itself in reality, and it is this which distinguishes faith from fantasy, the object of faith from a figment of imagination . . . . This is always the way. This type of doubt is silenced by facts, answered by truth and reassured by understanding . . . . Truth is the only sufficient answer faith can give doubt, for it is the truth of the matter, the facts of the case which give faith its solid foundation.50

Likewise, Board states the problem similarly:

Deep questions require deep study . . . . Christianity has something to do with fact and truth . . . . So doubts of error are met by knowledge and study.51

We have concurred with this prognosis throughout this chapter. It has been our purpose to present a long list of evidences in favor of the death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. Although it was not possible to develop any of these points, informational footnotes have suggested some additional sources in order to facilitate just the sort of study which can be the primary correction to this type of uncertainty.

Persons who have come to me with factual doubts are often distinguished by their questions involving the truthfulness of Christianity (in whole or in part), the lack of observable emotional patterns and a seeming desire to accept a good answer. As such, the proper data should at least theoretically be a sufficient cure.

A simple and somewhat humorous illustration of this occurred in my own family. My oldest son, Robbie, has always been a very inquisitive child, frequently refusing to take easy answers at face value. Once, after he asked me how one can know that Jesus was really raised from the dead, we got into a simple discussion about history in general and how one can know, for instance, that George Washington ever existed. Just a short time later, during Easter season, Robbie's Sunday School teacher asked the entire class the same question about the resurrection, to which my son replied, "How do you know that George Washington ever lived?" After a moment of reflection, the teacher understood the connection and she responded, "Oh yes, you're Habermas' son, aren't you?" At any rate, Robbie's factual doubts had been solved by the data and he was convinced enough to share the answer with others.

At the same time, the counselor or teacher who does an insufficient job dealing with a question ought not necessarily assume that the person's doubt is of a different nature. Thus if an individual questions the deity of Christ, it will probably not help to tell him to "just believe," concluding, if he doesn't, that it must be a volitional issue. Guinness states the problem well:

If someone is doubting the resurrection, it is irrelevant to assure him of Christ's promise never to leave him -- Christ never was with him if he has not risen . . . . If there is "no reason why" for faith, the time may come when there is "no reason why not" for doubt. And the best remedy for this doubt is to know the sure and sufficient reasons God has given us, to know why we can know God is there, to know why we can trust his revelation as true, to know why we can be sure of his love and his goodness, and to stand firm in our understanding of these truths.52

On the other hand, uncertainty is frequently not a simple issue but a compound one. More than factual doubt is quite often present. Perhaps what was once a more simple factual uncertainty has progressed to emotional levels due to a person's not being able to deal with it adequately. A more complicated case would be one in which factual and emotional doubt leads to a volitional quandary because of the unsettled nature of the other issues.

In one such case, an outstanding young Christian intellectual was studying for his doctorate at a major northeastern university. There he found himself alone and without much fellowship with other believers. And even though he had studied Christian philosophy and apologetics, what started as a few intellectual questions smoldered until an emotional flame followed. This young student interpreted his emotions as a rejection of Christianity and acted accordingly. Over a period of a few months, he read several anti-Christian authors, further confirming his change in beliefs.

During this time, when he had the opportunity, he told several of his Christian friends that he was now an agnostic and that he had, indeed, repudiated his faith. Later, when this budding skeptic's former pastor had heard about the problem and then drove over to speak to him, the pastor discovered that volitional doubt was likewise operational--this graduate student both acted cold and had no intention (or apparent desire) to choose to believe otherwise.

This was an example of doubt that had started fairly simply but had later blossomed into a compound case involving factual, emotional and volitional factors. But the pastor rightly surmised in this case that, unless the factual objections were removed first, emotional healing and the response of the will would probably not occur. So, the pastor took several trips to see the student and, acting correctly, attempted to chip away at the intellectual problems. Over a period of a few more months, the pastor was successful in showing his former member that, on strictly factual grounds, Christianity was true.

When no further factual objections of any importance remained, the pastor then concentrated on the rebellious will of the student, suggesting repentance. While at first the advice was resisted, the student finally did repent, returning to a prosperous Christian belief and life. Some time later, things were still getting better with the fruits of true Christian commitment being evident. Here and in other situations of either salvation or such repentance, I must conclude that without the work of the Holy Spirit, the ultimate result would never have occurred.

2. Dealing with Factual Doubt

Our previous discussion points out the importance of identifying what type of doubt is present in an individual. And while the last illustration may show that such is sometimes a complicated matter, there are several indications which reveal that it is not as difficult as one may think. One need not untangle every last thread; disclosing the chief type and working with it can usually cause the situation to unravel significantly so that other aspects can also be treated. Additionally, love and concern can be shown to the person, which in itself often helps. Lastly, the helper is not "on his own" and need not feel that the burden is on him. We can each only do our best; changing lives is the Holy Spirit's domain. Believers need to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit's working through them. Other believers can also be very helpful, as can personal study.

Having said all of this, how do we actually deal with factual doubt? I will suggest three steps, all of which follow from our preceding discussion.53

First, we need to learn the factual basis for the Christian faith. This is not to say that all Christians must become sophisticated apologists, but it does mean that we can at least have a good grasp of the factual basis for the gospel, as the center of the faith. And this is doubly crucial for the one who is either suffering factual doubt or who is helping another through it.

Of course, such a suggestion might take some study. Board states that, in working on this type of uncertainty, there "is no place for sloth."54 Guinness asserts that "of all the families of doubt this is probably the one best helped by reading."55 Be this as it may, having a sound factual basis for faith is the best remedy for factual doubt, as shown earlier in this section. And while an outlined case for the grounding for the gospel has already been supplied in this chapter, other relevant material and topics are also important here. But knowing why we believe the things we do is an excellent starting point.

Second, we cannot be content merely to know the basis for the Christian faith, and the gospel in particular, but we must constantly review and rehearse these facts. Thus, we must remind ourselves of this data.

After speaking of the subject of doubt, C. S. Lewis mentions this last point in his characteristic way:

. . . make sure that, if you have once accepted Christianity, then some of its main doctrines shall be deliberately held before your mind for some time every day. That is why daily prayers and religious reading and church-going are necessary parts of the Christian life. We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed.56

Lewis makes the worthwhile assertion here that such activity should occur daily, as well. To wait for the time that we experience doubt in order to "apply the facts" is not as affective. Besides, daily practice and review should act as a kind of doubt prevention. It is also recommended that such rehearsal might occur (in addition to Lewis' emphasis on prayer, reading and worship) in a daily period of meditation (see the later treatment of this subject).

Third, the factual basis for Christianity must be firmly held by faith. For me, this was always the toughest step, for I didn't think that faith was even relevant in this context, let alone knowing how to do it.

This point requires more attention than we can give it here. And since it is a matter of volition, as well, it is treated in more depth in that chapter. Suffice it to say at this juncture that faith is not a "weak sister." To quote Lewis, "Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods."57

One additional (and perhaps intriguing) assertion needs to be made on this subject and that is that faith needs to shift from factual propositions of the gospel to the Christ of the gospel. This needs to be treated later, as well, but the point is that it is not the impersonal relationship of a believer with the historical facts that is needed, but a personal, living relationship with the Jesus of the facts.

Perhaps two final notes of application are needed here. First, with factual doubts, the chief issue is the truth of the factual basis for Christianity. And since the gospel is true, we should stress that this is the case whether one chooses to believe it or not. And there is a certain sense in which it must be said to the one doubting that other concerns are less relevant at this point. Did Jesus Christ die for our sins? Was Jesus Christ buried afterwards? Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? Is Jesus Christ deity? We must stay on track here; to be sidetracked by pseudo problems is perhaps to lose the battle. How we feel about the data or if there is the "slightest chance" that it is false58 are red herrings.

With regard to serious factual objections, each must be faced on its own grounds. The endnotes in this chapter should provide some useful sources. But briefly, the viewpoint from which the challenge comes may need to be identified, since it very possibly has a bearing on the answer. Then the explicit issue needs to be addressed. But once again, the major subject in both factual uncertainty and with factual objections is still the facts: what are they? The evidence proves each of the facts in the gospel, so this sort of uncertainty ought to subside as we continually apply this knowledge.

Second, if a person continues to balk and defend his doubt, then other types of uncertainty may be the issue. Initially we should be willing to check if we have done the best we can in presenting the factual basis for Christianity. But beyond that, we should be alert for other signs. Questions about the very possibility of being mistaken, especially in the absence of any new facts, probably identifies emotional doubt. On the other hand, the unwillingness to exercise further faith may indicate volitional concerns. And we turn to these other species of uncertainty in subsequent chapters.

C. Conclusion

The gospel is the absolute center of the Christian faith. It is also the portion of Christianity which is most readily verified by the evidence. The atoning death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ are established on extremely strong grounds. I think that it is even a further indication of God's grace that the evidence is so abundant at this crucial juncture rather than at less important points.

Applying such facts to factual uncertainty can be tricky especially because of the compound doubts which are frequently present. But learning the factual basis, continually reviewing it and holding on to it by faith should cure factual doubt. Practice is imperative.

Christians must regularly remind themselves that the chief concern here is the truthfulness of the faith. Factual doubts and objections should be handled in much the same way: what does the evidence indicate? If the factual uncertainty is not solved at this point, we should examine both the job we did in studying and communicating that basis and the likelihood that there is more to the doubt than just that factual element itself.

Endnotes--Chapter III

1It should be noted that the word "gospel" in this discussion is used more narrowly of those facts which, in an orthodox sense, it is necessary for one to believe in order to be a Christian. To be more proper, the "gospel" is being used here of the facts which one must believe concerning Christ, for faith is placed in Him, not in the facts themselves. And I realize that any listing of the facts in the gospel will be open to some question and dialogue. So I will claim at this point simply that I think those listed here are the minimum number of beliefs which comprise the gospel as enunciated by many orthodox scholars.

2A very interesting point is made by those who think that the resurrection appearances should also be included as a distinct element in the gospel specifically as listed by Paul in I Cor. 15:3-5. The argument here is largely based on the "kai . . . kai . . . kai" sequence of verses 4-5 and asserts that, just as the burial and the resurrection of Christ are listed, the third kai also includes the appearances. A possible response is that, since no human being witnessed the actual resurrection itself (as far as is known), the fact that Jesus was indeed raised (v.4) is the conclusion drawn from the facts that He had actually died (v.3) and then later appeared (v.5), thereby meaning that the resurrection and appearances are construed as a whole. But the practical point to be made here is that, either way this question is solved, a defense of the resurrection is virtually always done in terms of the appearances anyway and the endnotes here will attest the same.

3See the sources in endnote 41 below for the relevance of the title "Christ" and other related issues.

4For a defense of various aspects of the trustworthiness of the gospels, including questions of authorship and eyewitness testimony (from both several viewpoints and on different difficulty levels), see: William F. Albright, Archeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1942); Paul Althaus, "Fact and Faith in the Kerygma," in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966); Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1987); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960); John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1986); Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), Chapter 16; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1971); Archibald M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), Chapter 3; Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino: Here's Life Publishers, Chapter 4; John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1964, 1965), Chapters 1-2; John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1977); A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978); Bastiaan Van Elderen, "The Teaching of Jesus and the Gospel Records," in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, edited by Carl F. H. Henry, op.cit.

5For defenses of the further point of the inspiration of the New Testament as well, see: Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982); W. Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955); Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968); R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957); Robert P. Lightner, The Saviour and the Scriptures (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1966); Clark H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971); Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982); B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948); John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984).

6See Phil. 2:8; I Pet. 3:18; cf. Rom. 4:25 for examples of early creeds which report the death of Jesus. Additionally, I Cor. 15:3 and 11:26 are especially central in such a discussion.

7See Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), especially Chapter V.

8For these twelve sources and a discussion of their value, see Habermas, Ibid., Chapters IV, VII.

9For some of the many medical doctors who have studied death by crucifixion, see, for example, Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1953); Robert Bucklin, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January, 1970; William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel and Floyd E. Hosmer, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" in Journal of the American Medical Association, volume 255, number 11, March 21, 1986; C. Truman Davis, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View" Arizona Medicine, March, 1965.

10See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 153-155. For a technical treatment of this archaeological find, see Nicu Haas, "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar," Israel Exploration Journal, volume 20, numbers 1-2.

11For a Roman statement, see Quintillian, Declamationes maiores 6,9. For another example, compare John Foxe, Foxe's Christian Martyrs of the World (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), p. 96. The regularity of this practice is difficult to determine.

12Each of the medical doctors in endnote number 9 agrees with this general description, as examples of those who hold this position.

13Frederick T. Zugibe, The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Examiner Investigates the Crucifixion (Cresskill: McDonagh and Company, 1981), p. 165.

14Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1981; Wayne: Dell Publishing Company, 1982), see especially Chapter Ten.

15Strauss' famous critique appears in his work A New Life of Jesus, two volumes (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1879), volume I, pp. 408-412. Another critic, Albert Schweitzer, found Strauss' criticisms to be the "death-blow" to such rationalistic hypotheses like the old view that Jesus did not die. See Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, translated by W. Montgomery (New York: MacMillian Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 56-57.

16For two examples, Reginald Fuller calls this early belief by Jesus' disciples "one of the indisputable facts of history." James D. G. Dunn states that it "is almost impossible to dispute" the historical fact of this conviction by the earliest Christians. See Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 142; James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), p. 75.

17See endnote number 4 above.

18See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 124-127

19For a discussion of these, see Ibid., pp. 99-100, 110, 147.

20For further information, see Ibid., pp. 155-156; cf. Paul L. Meier, First Easter (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), pp. 119-120.

21For an example of such information, see Bonnie LaVoie, Gilbert LaVoie, Daniel Klutstein and John Regan, "In Accordance with Jewish Burial Custom, The Body of Jesus was not Washed," Shroud Spectrum International, volume I, number 3 (June, 1982), pp. 8-17.

22For good arguments for the empty tomb, see William Lane Craig, "The Empty Tomb of Jesus" in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, edited by R. T. France and David Wenham, volume II (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning, Analecta Biblica 45 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970); Robert H. Stein, "Was the Tomb Really Empty?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 20, number 1 (March, 1977).

23Craig, Ibid., p. 194.

24Dunn, p. 69.

25Ibid., p.75.

26In addition, it will be said below that the elements which are most crucial for a resurrection apologetic can be established on historical grounds apart from any belief in the inspiration or even the general trustworthiness of the New Testament.

27On the issue of the trustworthiness of the resurrection passages in particular (in addition to endnote number 4) several specialized works deal with both the more basic and the more advanced concerns. In the former category, see John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984) and Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1981). Of a more advanced and technical nature, see Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984) and Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983).

28Lk. 24:34; II Tim. 2:8; cf. I Tim 3:15-16; Phil. 2:8-11.

29Rom. 1:3,4; 10:9-10.

30Dunn dates it as early as 32 or 33 A.D. (see pp. 69-70). Cf. Harris, pp. 9-14 and Osborne, pp. 221-233.

31For a survey of the reasoning behind these conclusions and the positions of various scholars, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 124-127.

32These include six non-Christian and four Christian sources.

33For a listing of these ten sources, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, Chapters IV, VI, VII. For a critical evaluation of them, see especially pages 112-115, 149-150, 161.

34While such a feat could take a book-length manuscript itself, the interested reader might consult what is still a classic treatment of the subject, James Orr's The Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965, from the 1908 edition). Cf. Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1976), pp. 114-171.

35For a brief summary of some of the critical attacks on these alternative theories themselves, see Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, edited by Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1987), pp. 20-21, including endnotes.

36For a brief listing of these and other evidences for the resurrection, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 127-129.

37For our conclusion on this issue, see Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud, Chapter Eleven.

8For this argument in more detailed form, see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 124-132.

39Besides the synoptic references in the next two endnotes (40 and 41) see John 4:25-26; 5:17-18; 10:27-33; 14:6. In addition to the sources in endnote number 4 above, see those in number 42, as well.

40For examples, see Matt. 11:27; Mk. 2:10-11; 10:45; 13:32; 14:36; 14:61-63.

41For examples, see Matt. 19:28-29; Mk. 2:1-12; 8:34-38; Lk. 12:8-9.

42There is much discussion on these issues in contemporary theology and, sadly, evangelicals have frequently failed to address many of the chief queries posed by critics. But this does not mean that the issues have not been answered. For an excellent treatment of the subject which not only answers many of the key questions but challenges the typical critical assessments, see Royce Gordon Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels: A Phenomenological and Exegetical Study of Synoptic Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982). For other important and noteworthy studies on these topics, see I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976); Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1976); George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974). Compare also Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, translated by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976) and C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

43See Gruenler, Ibid., pp. 15, 29, 31 and, especially, Chapters 2-3. Gruenler adds that even in the Gospel of John, Jesus makes no explicit claims which are not appropriate based on what is known about His implicit claims derived from the minimalistic data discussed above.

44See especially I Cor. 11:23; 15:3; Rom. 1:3,4 and Phil. 2:6-11. Cf. Acts 8:37; I Cor. 12:3; Heb. 4:14; I Jn. 4:15.

45Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles M. Hall, revised edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), p. 235; cf. pp. 55, 57, 321. Cf. Hengel, pp. 57-83; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, translated by Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, LTD., 1966), p. 101 for instance.

46See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, p. 109 for a listing of these sources.

47See the clear testimonies of Clement of Rome, Corinthians, 36, 59; Ignatius, Ephesians 5, 7, 15, 18, 19, 20; Magnesians 6, 7, 8; Romans, Introduction, 3, 8; Philadelphians 7; Smyrneans 1, 4; To Polycarp 8; Polycarp, Philippians 12. Of the three authors here, only Clement of Rome does not specifically call Jesus God. It is noteworthy that several New Testament texts also refer to Jesus as God (see Jn. 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; II Pet. 1:1; cf. Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3) although there is some question concerning the grammar, syntax or text in a few of these instances.

48See Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980; Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), especially Chapters 1-3.

49In I Cor. 15:3 Paul states that it is not just the death of Jesus which plays such an important part in the gospel, but His atoning death (i.e. that Jesus died for our sins). For a defense of the atonement, see Habermas, Ibid., pp. 108-112.

50Guinness, pp. 115-116.

51Board, pp. 7,9.

52Guinness, p. 117.

53Here and elsewhere in this book, the steps which are given should not be viewed as some "magic number" or as the healing process itself. In fact, the one suffering the doubt should ideally modify and expand these prescriptions in a biblical manner to fit his or her own needs. As Guinness aptly points out, assurance depends on our "grasp of God," not our mastery of identifying doubt or memorizing certain steps (Guinness, p. 33).

54Board, p.7.

55Guinness, p. 118.

56Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 124.

57Ibid., p. 123. I think that faith is much more than this (as Lewis also says), but this does not render this usage illegitimate.

58It is true that history can only provide facts according to high probability. But this ought to be no cause for doubt. We act every day based on probability and it never seems to bother us ("Will I arrive home from work safely?"). Additionally, such is all the factual certainty that any human enterprise (including science) can give us, so we are on strong grounds. And in well evidenced cases, such us the resurrection of Jesus, the term "proof" is warranted. Lastly, in pointing out the factual basis for Christianity we are deciding in favor of these facts, not against them. Thus, to continue to be bothered by the small chance to the contrary is a witness to one's emotional (not factual) doubt. (See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 19-20 for some additional thoughts on the nature of historical research.)

Thus emotional doubt affects persons across a wide spectrum, casting both believers and unbelievers alike into the same dilemma. And unless one can control such uncertainty, one "can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion."9

To illustrate the affect of one's feelings on one's reason, Lewis likens his own response to the medical usage of anesthetics. Though completely convinced on good grounds that the anesthesia will do no harm, he witnessed that when it was time for it to be administered, "a mere childish panic begins inside me . . . . I lose my faith in anesthetics." It is not reason warring against faith here because for Lewis, faith is based on reason. Rather, "The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other."10

This analogy is reminiscent of another which is employed by Blaise Pascal, a Seventeenth Century French philosopher and mathematician who quipped:

If the greatest philosopher in the world find himself upon a plank wider than actually necessary, but hanging over a precipice, his imagination will prevail, though his reason convince him of his safety. Many cannot bear the thought without a cold sweat. I will not state all its effects.11

I think that the affect of Pascal's illustration is even more gripping, for many of us can indeed understand his point only too well. The reasonable conviction that we can walk across a board that is sufficiently wide (especially if we have done it many times before) does little to assist us if that object is placed across a chasm. In such a circumstance, reason is at the mercy of one's imagination. For those of us who value our reasoning faculties, this is a sobering (and even a humbling) thought, but it is so frequently true. It aptly describes the plight in which humans find themselves when imagination conquers reason.

If I may indulge myself for the sake of one last illustration, the popular (but somewhat cruel!) childhood game where one utilizes one's fists to alternately represent a rock, scissors or paper is also instructional. The rock would perhaps appear to be the "strongest" object here and, as one might expect, it crushes the scissors. And while the scissors naturally cut the paper, a completely unexpected result also occurs: the paper covers (and thereby "defeats") the rock! I think that such is also a poignant picture of the relationship between one's reason and one's emotions (or "imagination" as Lewis or Pascal might prefer). While our reason appears to be ever so logical, requiring evidence, a little dose of feelings effectively topples the castle.

And what about the cause of this sort of doubt? By describing a common scenario, Lewis is perhaps at his best:

Our faith in Christ wavers not so much when real arguments come against it as when it looks improbable--when the whole world takes on that desolate look which really tells us much more about the state of our passions and even our digestion than about reality.12

But perhaps surprisingly, we frequently disguise the emotion as a rational exercise:

But everyone must have experienced days in which we are caught up in a great wave of confidence or down into a trough of anxiety though there are no new grounds either for the one or the other. Of course, once the mood is on us, we find reasons soon enough. We say that we've been `thinking it over': but it is pretty plain that the mood has created the reasons and not vice versa.13

And lastly, how does such imagination affect our conception of Christianity? Again Lewis points out:

When once passion takes part in the game, the human reason, unassisted by Grace, has about as much chance of retaining its hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace. The sort of arguments against Christianity which our reason can be persuaded to accept at the moment of yielding to temptation are often preposterous. Reason may win truths; without Faith she will retain them just so long as Satan pleases.14

From these insightful comments, we may glean several worthwhile pointers concerning the nature of emotional uncertainty. One's personal Christianity is more frequently threatened by one's view of his faith than by any actual problem. Thus, such questioning explains more about ourselves and other subjective factors than it does about Christianity.

Then, speaking as a "seasoned veteran," Lewis describes how emotional doubts usually thrive without input from any new objections to Christianity. Rather, the mood causes the believer to "invent" problems. Let me add here that the sort of concerns which affect believers during such moods are quite often the same "old" issues which the person has contemplated on several other occasions and which would not bother him if it were not for his current frame of mind. But Lewis notes how we quickly conclude that the factual problem is the reason for the anxiety, when such is usually not the case. Further, it is often the "preposterous" objections which are treated as respectable during these emotional periods of time.

B. Models for Healing

There are numerous methods for treating patients with psychiatric or psychological problems of a religious nature, perhaps in part because of the different backgrounds and professional convictions of the counselors themselves. Some operate primarily from a medical perspective, others with a psychological or counseling model. A growing group of pastors who have gotten increasingly involved in the healing process broaden this field of study. And this is not to infer that those within these separate groupings necessarily agree with each other, either!

On several occasions, I have observed the friendly rivalry between professionals who hold to these differing perspectives. The give-and-take is often fascinating as with an ongoing but amiable interchange which occurred between two friends of mine, a psychiatrist and a psychologist, who regularly discussed theoretical aspects concerning the subject of which proposed remedies really obtained the best results. On another occasion, I chaired a dialogue between two other scholars with different perspectives on whether the medical or psychological models were more conducive to theological endeavors. Another type of interaction which has really helped me has been derived from my referrals of certain persons to our campus counseling center and my continuing interaction in each of these cases.

But in spite of these differing approaches, the Christian who is suffering from doubt can take heart on at least three counts. Christian counselors such as those listed below agree that Scripture is central to the healing process and its truths are to be applied. Therefore, counseling goals and desired results are based on an objective Source.15

Additionally, there is widespread agreement among these professionals that more than one kind of treatment can work. After surveying a number of models, both psychological and medical, Gary Collins concludes that:

A careful look at the Bible reveals, however, that a variety of techniques were used when counseling took place . . . . counseling must utilize a variety of techniques.16

Lastly, there is an amazing amount of agreement among Christian researchers that a major (if not the chief) element in treating emotional doubt is cognitive in nature. That is, increasing numbers of professionals think that the primary approach to this type of uncertainty is to devise a strategy which applies rational truth to one's thoughts and actions. Thus, such a method requires both a cognitive response and a behavioral change.17

As an example, it would be amiss to describe C. S. Lewis' account of emotional uncertainty in such detail in the previous section of this chapter without also providing his answer to it. For Lewis, the answer is twofold, involving a cognitive change followed by a behavioral one. First, one needs to recognize that moods are going to change no matter who one is or what one believes. So individuals must be resolved, in Lewis' words, to teach these moods "where they get off." By this it is meant that one should actually expect changing emotions and be ready to dictate