The Social Dimension of Belief

As I have continued reading The Gravedigger File by Os Guiness I have come across a discussion on the social dimension of belief.

In the Gravedigger File, the Deputy Director, a Screwtape kind of character is telling one of his subordinates how to undermine the church. In this case he says that the church has failed to notice and think on the social dimension of belief. He is getting at the whole idea of "plausibility structures," which are necessary to make belief possible.

"the degree to which a belief (or disbelief) seems convincing is directly related to its "plausibility structure" - that is, the group or community which provides the social and psychological support for the beleif. If the support's structure is strong, it is easy to believe; if the support's structure is weak, it is difficult to believe. The question of whether the group's belief is actually true or not may never become an issue."

Guiness is not affirming that this is a proper way to approach truth, he is just saying that this is a state of things that modernism has foisted upon us. Earlier in the book, the Deputy Director says that this social dimension of belief enables things to be believed without the question of their being objectively true or false being raised at all.

I would love to query Guiness on this matter now that he has 20 years since the publication of this book to reflect on it. I am wondering how he would relate this to postmodernism. There are those who believe that postmodernism is simply hyper-modernism. Guiness is writing against modernism in this book, yet in this particular chapter, the modernist vision back in 1983 looks a lot like the postmodernist vision of today. This became more clear to me when reading a post on a postmodern theology site called Open Source Theology. This post is called: Can Faith Be Based on a Book? A commenter asks the question "Is the Bible the Word of God?" and answers his own question as follows:

Albannach, the texts that together make up what we call the "Bible" never refer to scripture as the "word of god," so it seems that it would be a mistake to do so even for those who have a high view of scripture. Specific sayings that are contained within scripture are referenced as the "word of god," but never scripture itself. "So is the Bible the word of God?" It seems to me that it would be unbiblical to say so.

I think you are correct that it is implausible to base Christian faith upon the Bible. The most plausible basis (indeed the only available basis) for the Christian faith is the practices of communities that believe that God was acting for the sake of humanity in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. What we believe about the status of the Bible can only be derived from a prior belief about the status of Jesus. That prior belief about the status of Jesus is reasonable or unreasonable to the extent that specific Christian communities are embodying their beliefs about Jesus and his God in such a way that the community and its practices form an inhabitable life-world, that is, a lived-out interpretation of reality, that to some degree demonstrates to the world God's intent for human existence.

Comments like that are the kind that can make my conservative theological blood boil, but I'll try to tone it down and just point out that this is the fulfilment of the "Deputy Director's" vision in The Gravedigger File. Notice, this person says:

The most plausible basis (indeed the only available basis) for the Christian faith is the practices of communities

And

That prior belief about the status of Jesus is reasonable or unreasonable to the extent that specific Christian communities are embodying their beliefs about Jesus and his God in such a way that the community and its practices form an inhabitable life-world

The Deputy Director would be proud of these open source theologians.

Guiness makes the point that culture is not neutral. In saying that our beliefs are shaped by social factors he is giving us a warning, not saying we should embrace the idea. He is not saying that, because our community believes something, we ought to believe it also. He is saying "wake up - the community of which you are a part may have shaped your beliefs in a harmful way." By recognizing the social dimension of belief, or the plausibility structures in which we find ourselves, we can step outside and critique the plausibility structures themselves.

Guiness, throgh the character of the director, goes on to say that the church forms the plausibility structure for the Christian faith. What happens when the church allows the world around it to create a plausibility structure for it? This is what I see happening with these open sourcers. This particular person says that the most plausible basis for the Christian faith was the practices of Christian communities. But he fails to ask what was the most plausible basis for the practices of those communities. I contend that the Christian faith, as propagated through the Old Testament Scriptures and the apostolic witnesses formed the basis for the practice of those communities. The Christian faith provided a basis for the practice of these communities, thus enabling the practices of the communities to provide further plausibility structures for the Christian faith. The relationship was reciprocal.

My biggest concern is that the Deputy Director's vision of the future of Christendom has come to full flourish in our day. To the Deputy Director, modernism would undermine the church. If Guiness's analysis in this part of the book is correct, postmodernism is more like the full flowering of modernism, rather than a departure from modernism. It could be that folks like these open sourcers aren't so much on the cutting edge of postmodernity, they are on the trailing edge of modernity.

P. S. If you want a slightly different take on the notion and application of "plausibility structures," see this post by Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost, and this one by Jeff Clinton at The Dawn Treader.

Comments

[Tony Stiff]

David I'm just catching this post...a bit late I know. Man this would be a great post to re-post...very timely piece.

Thanks brother, Tony