O Me of Little Faith

O Me of Little Faith

David Dark: The Wonder-Working Power of Sacred Questioning

DavidDark.jpgHe probably doesn’t remember it, but David Dark played a minor role in my journalistic coming-of-age. One of the first assigned articles I ever wrote was for a (now defunct) online magazine called Communique Journal. It was back in 1997 or so, and I was supposed to be doing an interview of the singer/songwriter, Sarah Masen, who happens to be David’s wife. When a snowstorm prevented Sarah from performing the concert that was bringing her to my area, David helped me facilitate an email interview with her. It was my first interview using that bold new form of communication. And it led to my first online publication.

I’ve kept up with David’s career ever since, and remain a fan of his work (Sarah’s, too). David is an excellent critic of Christianity, religion, and pop culture, and most recently is the author of The Sacredness of Questioning Everything, which proclaims that asking difficult questions about faith is a sacred obligation. Eugene Peterson has called him “a reliable lie detector” when it comes to the Christian faith.

Despite being a busy teacher and while pursuing a PhD in religious studies at Vanderbilt, David was gracious enough to deliver his own thought-provoking (and question-inducing) contribution to our “Voices of Doubt” series.  


I can’t recall a time when I haven’t felt my pulse quicken upon entering the lobby of a
movie theater, and I occasionally wonder if other filmgoers feel the same way. For my
part, the powerfully good vibrations hark back to the dream job I took up the day I turned
16, the day I got paid to pass time in what was to me a sacred space. I would soon be
promoted to handling popcorn, selling tickets, and, in time, running the film projector,
but not without a few weeks undergoing the initiatory rite of sweeping my way around
the lobby. There was nothing like it. I’d walk around the lobby with my broom and talk
to strangers about the movies in which they’d recently found themselves immersed. To
my ongoing delight, they were very up for talking. Whether the film they’d seen was
revelatory or lame, they were, in fact, eager to talk it all out with somebody, anybody,
who wanted to know what they thought. There I stood in an awkward fitting vest, horn-rimmed glasses, and a broom in hand. “What’d you think?” I asked (It was my job after
all). Did they sense something of their own lives in what they just experienced? Is the
world a slightly different place now? If so, how?

Movies, I found, related easily to all other movies and the subject of movies was and
is — we know it’s true — absolutely everything. Inspiringly broad-ranging conversations
materialized within seconds, and these conversations knew no boundaries. Everything
had to do with everything else. Movie talk makes for many a tangent. And the tangents,
I came to understand, are the sunshine. The walls came down.

In the wake of a good
movie, the words that work like walls (religion, politics, entertainment, spirituality, or
whatever boundary might keep some aspect of life seem irrelevant to another) would fail
at every turn. They were just different words that couldn’t do justice to the film-viewing
experience. Movies would every so often almost succeed in nailing down our always-slippery human existence. Standing there in the theater lobby, yakking away with people
who wouldn’t normally have a good reason to talk to me, I came to love this slipperiness.
The slipperiness was there in any good movie. It was evident in everything we have from
Shakespeare. And if I could let the thing speak beyond the bounds of church buildings on
Sunday mornings, it was shockingly evident, alive and signalling — this slipperiness — in
my reading of the Bible.

I know this isn’t everyone’s experience with what we sometimes call “a religious
upbringing.” But as a teenager, it seems I read too many comic books, tuned into too
many Twilight Zone episodes, and listened to too much U2 to ever think the Bible could
render the world less weird or more narrow. For me, the Bible wouldn’t (couldn’t!) function as a sort of answer dispenser like a phone book or a dictionary. The Bible
demanded questions (lots of questions) even as it posed cosmically profound questions to
the lifeworld of anyone who dared to open it up. This leather-bound black hole has a way
of freaking you out forever. It makes space for all manner of strangeness. It means more —
not less
conversation. More
not less —

Somehow, I developed an appetite for that which drove me to doubt what I thought I
knew. And it was in full possession of this sensibility that I sought out conversations
about the Bible. Because I showed up with the same sense of expectation I’d long felt in movie theaters, I found I’d never meet a Bible study I didn’t like. Strangely, I suppose
I could argue that my years at the movie theater birthed within me a desire for a certain
sacred space I spotted constantly there in the lobby, very often in bookstores, and at least
occasionally within the walls of churches. I call it the space of the talkaboutable. It’s the
space a good story or a good song conjures up most effortlessly.

And, needless to say,
it’s the space I believe Jesus of Nazareth brought with him, in word and deed, in his call
to change our ways of thinking and doing in view of a kingdom to come, the space he
announced in response to questions concerning what he and his disciples were up to — questions he more often than not responded to with (frustrating as it was and is) more
questions. This seems to be the way the work of sacred questioning gets done. With an
eye on the life and liveliness to which Jesus summons us, I’d like to argue that this is our
work too. Think of it as a sacred obligation, a calling, a vocation.

Against the notion that faithfulness to God requires a stifling of our ability to think
things through or that dutiful submission to authority is somehow a virtue in itself,
I’d like to champion the joy, the responsibility, and the thrill of doubting, wondering,
of interrogating the voices (inside and outside our heads) that sabotage our ability to
imagine ourselves and others differently. I believe it might even be the most immediate
means to living a life of proper worshipfulness and due reverence. I have in mind here the
words of Fred Friendly (he worked beside Edward R. Murrow and was played by George
Clooney in the film, Good Night and Good Luck). He said that his job as a newsman was
to create a pain in the viewers’ minds, a pain that can only be relieved by thinking.

Do we bring this sort of thing to our reading of the Bible, our conversations with those
we believe to be like-minded, our consumption of media? If we don’t, I imagine we’re
missing the depths of the abundant life to which we’re called. I believe that it is by the
relentless questioning of ideas, bad ideas about God, money, sex, success patriotism,
and real living people whose names we find it hard to spell, by rethinking the bad ways
we’ve ordered the world in our heads that we redeem and get redeemed. Without it, we
mistake our strongly felt first impressions and often our sense of offendedness itself for
a kind of deep spirituality, as if we’re only called to be simple-minded and deeply upset
by certain people who won’t fit into our grid, our narrow sense of what we find somehow
appropriate and inoffensive.

The Southern storyteller, Flannery O’Connor, once remarked that this thought habit mistakes
Christian faith for a warm, cozy electric blanket that will soothe, dim our perceptions,
and anaesthetize our minds with a stacked deck of ready-made answers. O’Connor
counters this conception by insisting that an engaged and engaging faith is more like a
cross — that lively, more difficult, and more costly interface with the world God so loves.

The questioning I call for is indistinguishable from the call to pay attention to the sweet
old world we’re in, to be mindful of the God-given complexity of the lives before us.
Just as Jesus’ questions worked wonders in human relations, expanding the possibility — the very meaning — of civilization on down to our day with reverberations we have yet
to take on fully, we ourselves are called to celebrate and expand this space.

If we’re to
be faithful
to the observational candor the Bible exemplifies and enables, we will push
forward with more — not fewer — questions. It isn’t just that they’re allowed or that God
can handle it. Our commitment to the God’s new day on the way, the kingdom to come,
demands them.


Thanks, David. Keep up with David Dark on twitter or at his blog, Peer Pressure Is Forever. And don’t miss his books The Sacredness of Questioning Everything, The Gospel According to America, and Everyday Apocalypse.

Previous posts in the “Voices of Doubt” series…

Cara Davis: A Textbook Case
Matthew Paul Turner: Letting Them See My Doubt
Sally Lloyd-Jones: Where Did You Put Your Faith?
Chad Gibbs: When It Doesn’t Seem Fair
Leeana Tankersley: The Swirling Waters
Robert Cargill: The Skeptic in the Sanctuary
Dana Ellis: Haunted by Questions
Rachel Held Evans on Works-Based Salvation
Winn Collier: Doubt Better
Tyler Clark on Losing Fear, Losing Faith
Rob Stennett on the Genesis of Doubt
Adam Ellis on Hoping That It’s True
Nicole Wick on Breaking Up with God
Anna Broadway on Doubt and Marriage

Comments read comments(5)
post a comment

posted October 22, 2010 at 3:24 pm

Yes! What a compelling concept – ‘to create a space’- it really resonates with me. This Voices of Doubt series is so intelligent, refreshing and light-filled it gives a tired and battered old Christian new hope and resolve.

report abuse

Gary Mac

posted October 29, 2010 at 8:11 am

Your comment that more questions are raised than answers does not apply when one has Gods Spirit. Even Jesus in Matt 3:16 didn’t know Gods heaven until it was fully opened to him at the age of 30. The goal in Christendom is that we become like Him, one with God as Jesus prayed to God for us to be in John 17. The notion that we can’t have the answers concerning Gods kingdom is contrary to the Christ. Christ is sent to open Gods kingdom to us, and only Gods Spirit be in you, the revelation of the Christ, open it to you. Christ in you is supposed to be the same one who was in Jesus. Let this same mind be in you who was in Christ Jesus was written for a purpose. Christ simply means to be anointed of Gods Spirit. If there are questions about Gods kingdom then you have not experienced what Jesus did in Matt 3:16. Jesus refers to this process as born again with a renewing of your mind.
To say that you don’t know or cannot know is to say Christ failed to teach you and it isn’t that He failed it is you fail to listen to His teachings of what you are supposed to be — One with the Father, He in you and you in Him as one.
God sent an example for us to follow, to be like, to imitate, to pick up that cross and continue where he left off, what happened that he failed to do that? I think people are so afraid to step out and be that person of Christ they are supposed to be that they make laws to govern their god as they see fit instead of being like Him. Jesus came to show us the way and his way is for us to be as he was, having what he had.
There is a whole lot more to be said on this subject but who will listen?

report abuse

Derrick A.

posted October 29, 2010 at 10:03 am

Mr. Gary Mac said exactly what was to be said, than you Mr. Mac.
God bless you.

report abuse

Derrick A.

posted October 29, 2010 at 10:07 am

Sorry, Gary that was to read Thank you Mr. Mac

report abuse

Phillip Smith

posted October 30, 2010 at 10:02 am

Very good and poignant article, Jason. This guy, David Dark had it spot on. I believe(and this is my opinion, feel free to question it. I’m open to criticism), that, as Christians, and I need to remember this myself, all the time, as a progressive Christian, that, whatever faith one is, or whether one is progressive, fundamentalist, traditionalist, orthodox, or whatever, we don’t have all the answers. I’m sure that great sages, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, and the like didn’t claim they had all the answers. Careful exegesis of the Gospels, for example, would reveal that not even Jesus himself would have claimed HE had all the answers. More often than not, when questioned, he put the ball in his questioner’s court, “What do YOU think” To Peter “Who do YOU say that I am” to name just a few examples. We had the great pleasure of hearing, for a second time Australian theologian, Val Webb at Common Dreams, this year. One of her previous books was entitled “In Defense of Doubt”. A good book, apparently, and I must read it myself, sometime. As we say here in Australia “Thanks, mate!!”.

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting O Me Of Little Faith. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!

posted 2:25:22pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Farewell, O Me of Little Faith
You said you had a big announcement coming today. What is it? The announcement is this: Right now you are reading the final post on this blog. Ever. Ever? Ever. So you're shutting this blog down? Well, I'm going to stop writing any new posts for it. But the blog will still be here. Th

posted 6:11:49am Jun. 01, 2011 | read full post »

My Introvert Interview
On Monday, author Adam McHugh delivered a guest post about the "snarling 8-headed monster" of the writing process. Today I return the favor -- sort of -- via an interview at his blog, Introverted Church. We talk about how my introverted personality has impacted my faith and doubt, and how the extrov

posted 3:05:36pm May. 25, 2011 | read full post »

Harold Camping: "Invisible Judgment Day"
When the rapture didn't occur as predicted on May 21, 2011, Harold Camping had a few options. Here is how he could have responded to the failed prediction, in descending levels of crazy: 1. He could announce that he was wrong. This is the most reasonable option and was therefore unexpected. I wou

posted 9:06:24am May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

The Phases of Writing (Adam McHugh)
If you've ever felt out of place among all the exciting, expressive, emotional enthusiasm of a contemporary church service...or an evangelist's demands that you need to constantly be sharing your faith boldly to strangers...if it simply wipes you out to be surrounded by people all the time,  then y

posted 7:46:00am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.