Boyd, R. Maurice

English

Scholars Commons

Believing is seeing

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 16Issue 1 Hermeneutics: Theory and Practice Article 65-1-1990Believing is seeingR. Maurice BoydFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Sermons is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationBoyd, R. Maurice (1990) "Believing is seeing," Consensus: Vol. 16 : Iss. 1 , Article 6.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol16/iss1/6“Believing Is Seeing”R. Maurice BoydSenior Minister, The Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church,New York, New YorkText: “And He did not work many miracles there: suchwas their want of faith.” St. Matthew 13:58If an unbeliever asks, “How does one become a believer?”he is likely to be told that the way into faith is by having faith.And that answer is a problem for the questioner for it seems tobe no answer at all. He may reply that it is not like that in anyother region of thought or experience. If in any other disciplinehe asks how he is to believe, he is shown the evidence. He sees,understands, and if the evidence is compelling, is convinced byit. But apparently it is not like that in religion. To becomea believer, it seems, is not to be convinced by the strength ofthe evidence, but to possess enough faith to trust the evidenceto be true. But what sort of evidence is it that has to betrusted to be true? Real evidence is not trusted to be truebut convinces us of its truth. The unbeliever might then beginto suspect that faith is nothing more or better than credulity,and that Christians are not only tender of heart but a littlesoft in the head. Faith is brought in because the evidence isweak. The unbeliever becomes convinced that Christians donot think as clearly or as rigorously as unbelievers do. Isn’t itinteresting that “The Rationalist Press” was the name chosenfor the publishing enterprise of those who were unsympatheticto religion, suggesting, of course, that religion is less rationalthan unbelief, and that all the clear, hard thinking is done bythose who do not believe.As a result, some unbelievers are not only confident in theirunbelief, but superior, condescending, even arrogant. Theydismiss faith as wishful thinking. Christians are those who82 Consensuswant to believe so badly that they will believe anything. Butnot the unbelievers! They are the ones who think honestly,courageously, objectively, and are persuaded only by evidence.After all, “seeing is believing”, isn’t it? So they come to theconclusion that the little boy was right who was alleged to havesaid, “Faith means believing what you know isn’t true.”When unbelievers begin to talk like that, and to adopt thatattitude, what are we going to say to them? And here we mustremember that we are contending, not only with the unbelieveroutside us, but with the unbeliever within us. There are times,surely, when we question the grounds of our own belief and askwhether we are self-deceived because we want to believe.I do not know what you W'ould say in reply to the unbelieveroutside us and within us; but given the opportunity, I knowwhat I should like to say. I should reply, “Affirm, if you wish,that seeing is believing, but if you do you must recognize theimplications of what you say, and you must be prepared to livewith them. If you are not aware of them, then let me tell youwhat they are; let me draw them out for you and allow you todiscover whether or not you wish to affirm them.”I. Here is the first: Declare, if you wish, that seeing is be-lieving, but if you do then you must not expect to be a scientist;certainly not a great one.Now that may seem a strange assertion to make, for surelythe very heart of the scientific method is to observe, and to bepersuaded by what we see. In the hard sciences, if anywhere,seeing is believing. That is how most people think of scien-tists; it is the view commonly held of them. But it is a viewthat does them much less than justice. Scientists have muchmore imagination than that, and scientific endeavor is far morecreative than that.For example, one of the most perceptive newspaper colum-nists in this country informs us that a friend of his who is ascientist tells him that in this age of journalism, of the superfi-cial judgment, the easy conclusion and the glib comment, it isthe scientist who is saying that reality is not what it appearsto be. The superficial view may be acceptable in journalism,but it will not do in science. In science, if we believe what wesee, our belief will often be false, or at the very least, mislead-ing. The scientist declares astonishing things, telling us thatBelieving is Seeing 83matter is really energy, that light is subject to gravity, that ifwe increase the speed of an object we reduce the passage of itstime. This sounds like pure fantasy, and yet this is what scien-tists believe to be true. It is the scientist who tells us not onlythat reality is queerer than we suppose, but that it is queererthan we can suppose. It reaches not only beyond the limits ofour sight but further than our imagination can reach.Here is another scientist who tells us that the protons, neu-trons and electrons which are basic stuff of matter have neverbeen seen or heard or touched by anyone. How do we knowthey are there? We know that these entities exist only becausethey can be held together in a meaningful and useful pattern.But the pattern is not something to be seen for it is itself amental concept.Another scientist reminds us that when we examine the of-ten unexamined presuppositions of science, the basic beliefson which the whole scientific enterprise is founded and whichmake it possible, we are forced to move beyond science intophilosophy and even religion. For example, when a scientisttells me dogmatically that the only way to know anything isthe scientific way, I immediately want to ask him whether thestatement he has just made is itself a scientific statement. Itsounds dangerously like a philosophical one to me. But if itis, then the scientist who makes it has disproved his own case.To make his arrogant assertion he must move beyond a scien-tific way of knowing to a different way of knowing so that hefinds himself among the philosophers and even the poets andmystics!Here is another scientist who tells us that while there arescientists who go about picking up facts, little bits of informa-tion, and who are unimaginative enough to think that havingdone so they have exhausted their discipline, the great scien-tists are not like that. She calls the scientists who will believeonly what they can see the “stamp collectors” of science, andimmediately apologizes to all stamp collectors. Science, shetells us, has to do not merely with facts, with things that areseen, but with meaning. The scientific enterprise is impossiblewithout imagination, vision, creativity. The dull ones are the“stamp collectors”, the great ones have much in common withcreative artists.84 ConsensusEinstein tells us that the work of the scientist begins, not inanything that can be seen but in a certain attitude. It beginsin a sense of wonder. He tells us that without a sense of wonderwe might as well be dead, for it is the beginning of all true artand science. In other words astronomy did not begin whenan astronomer looked at the night sky through a telescope; itbegan when a little child said, “Twinkle, twinkle, little star,how I wonder what you are!”Don’t miss the point! It is a very simple one. If you areprepared to believe only what you see, then you will not believevery much, and much of what you do believe will be mistaken.You will not see or understand enough to be a scientist.II. Here is my second assertion. Believe, if you wish, thatseeing is believing, but if you do you must not expect to be acreative artist.We have been speaking of creative scientists, now we mustspeak of creative artists. Seeing is believing? But as soon as wesay it the writer, or painter, or composer will reply that thereisn’t anything to see! When they begin their work, all theyhave is a box of colors, a pen, a blank page, a lined manuscript.That is all. There is nothing for them to see. Everything waitsfor them to bring into being something that cannot be seenuntil it is created; something that was not there to be seenuntil they created it.You cannot see a fire in the bones, or an inner vision, or animpulse of the heart, or an insight of the mind, or a hint orintimation that has to be worked for before it is possessed andmay easily be lost at any moment. There is nothing for artiststo see, for their whole undertaking is an adventure in discovery,to bring into being something that was not there before. Andwhat they bring into existence may be as astonishing and un-expected to the artists as it is to those who see their paintings,or read their book, or hear their music. Robert Frost tells usquite simply that if there is no surprise for the writer, therecan be no surprise for the reader.Towards the end of his life, Hemingway told a man whohad come to interview him that when he wrote The Old ManAnd The Sea, a story in which a great fish comes circling theboat and sniffing the bait, that he, the author, did not knowwhether or not it would take the bait. Flannery O’Conor tellsBelieving is Seeing 85us that she did not know how one of her most famous storieswould end. She had to discover how it would end as she wroteit. C. Day Lewis, the late Poet Laureate, declares that “Verseis not the expression of truth in poetry. Verse is the discoveryof truth in poetry.”In our own poor way we know this, for we have all discov-ered at one time or other that in good conversation we hit upontruth in ourselves that we didn’t know was there. We were as-tonished when it happened and wondered where it came from.It was not that we knew it, and then stated it. It was thatwe did not know it until we stated it. The thought came inthe words and astonished us. It was Robert Frost who spokeof the joy of “remembering something I didn’t know I knew.”We all know something of that. Conversation is not alwaysabout things we know. At its best it is the discovery of truthwe didn’t know.Again, don’t miss the point. Say, if you wish, that seeing isbelieving, but if you do, you must realize that you will neverbe a creative artist, for the creative artist creates somethingthat isn’t there to be seen.III. Here is a third thing to notice: Say, if you wish, thatseeing is believing, but if you do then get ready for some verysuperficial relationships because they are the only sort you willbe capable of having or sustaining.You know how it is that when Jack and Jill fall in love allthe old gossips at their bridge parties say to one another, “Idon’t know what he sees in her!” or, “I don’t know what shesees in him!” They never said a truer word; they don’t know.But Jack knows! He finds in his beloved the fulfillment of allhis dreams of loveliness; and she, looking at him, thinks thereis no one else like him in the whole world. Now who is right?Do the old gossips have the truth of the matter, or do Jackand Jill? Are the lovers given to excess in their claims, or arethe gossips deficient in their view?William James, you will remember, considered the question,and there was no doubt about his answer. It is the lovers whoare closer to the truth of things. Do you know why? Because,says William James, love, faith, trust and generosity will revealwhat cynicism, suspicion, hatred and fear will never discover.Who knows you best? There is no doubt that the peoplewho love you do. To whom do you respond? To the people who86 Consensustrust you. Let me tell you that if you do not trust me you willnever know me, because if you do not care'for me I am not go-ing to show you anything that I really care about. Trust is thecondition of knowledge, isn’t it? You discovered that at thatdreadful party you went to once. Don’t you remember? Youfelt that everyone was critical, that they were watching youto see how you behaved and if you would make any mistakes.Ten minutes after you arrived you were asking yourself whyyou had come. Everything you said sounded trite and superfi-cial. Everything you did seemed awkward and clumsy. Goodthoughts which your friends had appreciated seemed stupid inthis hostile company. Jokes your friends thought were funnydied on your lips and won no laughter from anyone, only em-barrassment from you. And all the lightsomeness and joy wentout of you, the springs of humor dried up, and you could notbe yourself. And you remembered that in company where youare known and loved you are at ease, and all the juices ofpersonality flow, and all the colors of character are revealedand cherished. Those who love us enable us to be our trueselves. These are the people who know us best, for their loveis their power of appreciation and understanding, and we feelsafe enough with them to allow them to know us, and we arenot intimidated in their presence.It is like that with congregations. I have a friend who isone of the greatest preachers in the English-speaking world,yet he preached once in a church and had a dreadful time. Itwas heavy going from beginning to end. He could make noth-ing of it. When he had finished he felt a total failure. Hetalked to a Scottish friend about it. He, too, was one of theworld’s great preachers. He asked him if he had ever preachedin that church, and how his sermon had gone over. His friendreplied that he had preached to that congregation ten yearsearlier and not only remembered it, but was still trying to getthe chill of it out of his bones! The coldness of the congrega-tion was such that all warmth, spontaneity and inspiration inthe preacher froze. It is said that great preachers make greatcongregations. Perhaps they do. But the deeper truth is thatgreat congregations make great preachers. A congregation byits attentiveness, responsiveness and warmth can elevate everypreacher and make them great. And another congregation byits coolness and lack of response can discourage every preacherand drive them to despair.Believing is Seeing 87A young minister once told me that when he first arrivedat his new church, the people had obviously decided that theywould wait to see what he was like before making up theirminds whether or not to welcome him. It sounds reasonable.Wait and see and then decide. It sounds reasonable, but itdoesn’t work. And it doesn’t work because “what he is like”will depend on how he is received; whether he is welcomed withtrust and openness or met by suspicion and coldness. Withouttheir welcome he felt rejected and miserable. When he hadbeen there six months one member of the congregation saidto him, “You haven’t made any mistakes—yet!” So he spentan unhappy two years trying to prove himself, and finally left,discouraged and sad. If only they had given him their trustfirst, they would have made possible a deep, rich ministry.And a further sadness is that people who are like that haveno awareness of what they do to others, or how greatly theyimpoverish their own lives. If the trust comes first it makeseverything possible. If it is withheld, little can be done. Evenour Lord could do nothing without it. We read that in oneregion of the country in which He travelled, “He could do nomighty work there because of their unbelief.” Not even Hecould overcome their suspicion and distrust!Mind you, there is a place for caution and reserve, for somepeople are dishonest and we are sometimes deceived. But theplace of suspicion is surely secondary. If we begin by beingsuspicious of everyone and everything, it is not a sign of wisdombut of sickness. There is time for suspicion when our experienceso instructs us. But we don’t begin with it. If we do, we maynever get beyond it.Again, don’t miss the point! If you wait to see before youbelieve, you won’t see much, and deep relationships will passyou by. Assert if you will that seeing is believing, but if you do,then you will never be a scientist, you will never be a creativeartist, you will never enjoy deep personal relationships. Hereis the last implication of your view.IV. Say, if you wish, that seeing is believing, but if you doyou will never be a leader.Some have an idea of leadership that says, “Prove to methat what you are proposing cannot fail and when you havedone so, I will give you my support.” My answer to that idea88 Consensusis that by the time I can prove that my proposal cannot failI do not need their support. The critical time is over. To bea leader you have to act before you can prove that what youare proposing cannot fail. The proof comes later, not sooner.Without the event there can be no proof.People who talk like that are like the second-rate bank man-ager who is eager to lend me money so long as I can demon-strate that I don’t need it. A leader is not one who has beenpersuaded that a great undertaking cannot fail. A leader is onewho believes it into reality. Robert Frost said of the love be-tween his wife and himself that it was “a love that was believedinto fulfillment.”Do you remember the words Ted Kennedy used at hisbrother Robert’s funeral? They were Robert’s favorite words:“Some people look at things as they are and ask why? I dreamof things that never were and ask, why not?” Now that isleadership. But the believing comes first. Without it there isnothing to be fulfilled!Four things! Now let me wrap them all up for you. Letme tell you what I have been saying. I have been saying thatfaith is not believing what you know isn’t true, but is itself thecondition of sight. It is all expressed splendidly by St. Au-gustine: “To have faith is to believe what you cannot see, andthe reward of faith is to see what you believe.”One day, when I lived in Sarnia, I drove sixty miles to Lon-don, Ontario, and went to the cinema. I was a little annoyedbecause the image on the screen was out of focus. So I com-plained to one of the attendants who went off and tried hardto improve the picture, but with little success. Then, driv-ing home, I noticed that some of the highway signs were outof focus, and there was nobody to complain to about them.Instead, I went to see my dear friend Dr. Biehn who smiled,tested my eyes and said, “It’s just your age. You need glasses.”So he gave them to me. And now I can see a sharp image inthe cinema and on the highway.What if faith is the very condition of sight, a way of bringinginto focus what is there waiting to be seen! It is not that seeingis believing, but that believing is seeing! When I invite you tohave faith, I am not asking you to sell out all your intellectualintegrity. Who would find any pleasure in that? Should weBelieving is Seeing 89think, by doing so, to please the God who made us able tothink clearly and who loves truth in our inward parts? WhenI exhort you to have faith I am appealing to the deepest partof your humanity. You are not genuinely human without it. Itis not simply that without faith you will not know God; it isthat without faith you won’t know anybody or anything worthknowing.So if our Lord stands here this morning, as indeed He does,and says, “Have faith!” to do so will not diminish you, it willelevate you. If you have it to give, and if He is worthy to receiveit, what is there left for you to do but to give it to Him? Giveit to Him! Just a tiny little bit, small as a mustard seed, willdo. Give Him that, and you will be astonished at what He willdo with it, and where it will lead you, and what it will showyou.

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1959&amp;context=consensus

Believing is seeing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University