Not too long ago I sat on an airplane waiting to fly out of Orlando back to Dallas. The plane was delayed for quite some time as, for some reason, the preflight checks were taking longer than normal. Unfortunately, it gave me time to think about all the things that could go wrong with the plane. I wondered how many components they had to check. Think about it. Do they really check those things well enough to put more than two hundred people thirty thousand feet in the air? “What if they missed something?” I thought to myself. There are just so many things to miss! I worked myself into a panic and then had to calm myself by attempting to reintroduce common sense.

When it comes to faith, many of us have the same types of questions that keep us from ever really relaxing. All the things we fail to check. All those things we could be wrong about. These possibilities cause us to lose our joy and replace it with doubt and spiritual panic.

I have found that there are two, very similar, paralyzing conclusions that stem from this type of doubt:

1. I did not check everything out.

2. Someone knows something I don’t.

I did not check everything out

Though we need to be diligent, informed, skeptical, and wise in our faith, we need to be careful that we don’t work ourselves into an impossible situation. I don’t know how many people I have talked to who are always one fact, one verification, or one piece of evidence away from belief. Often, no matter how many reasons we have to believe, we simply cannot trust. “Yeah, but what about _______?” is the most common thought in our head. It goes on and on. There are always other possibilities to explain the evidence.  Even if the other possibilities are highly unlikely (“well, maybe there is some explanation for the resurrection that we don’t know about”), with this mindset in the driver’s seat, these doubts serve as legitimate reasons for us to suspend our faith commitment.

When it comes to essential Christianity, what I have found is that these “Yeah, but what about ____?”s normally don’t have any bearing on the truthfulness of Christianity, but on the validity of some interpretation of a non-essential aspect of the faith.

“What about evolution?”

“How did Noah get all those animals on the ark?”

“Why did God allow all those kids to die in the Arkansas flood?”

“Why does God allow so much evil?”

“What words did Christ really use in this passage? Matthew says this, but Mark says this.”

“Why do the Catholics include the Apocrypha and Protestants don’t?”

“Why is there so much disagreement among Christians about the details?”

“What about the Inquisition?”

On and on it goes. Now to be sure, sometimes the questions are not ancillary to essential Christianity, but so many times they are. However, the types of questions listed above (and a thousand others like them) should not prevent anyone from accepting the central belief of Christianity – that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died for our sins and rose from the grave and that we must repent and trust in him to be saved.

Another problem with this line of thinking is that it unconsciously commits to non-belief while waiting to have everything we think we might have missed answered. However, the methodology carries an inherent double standard. Why doesn’t our non-belief have to have all the questions answered? Why are we not suspended in a state of belief until all of the reasons why we could be wrong about believing are answered? If the evidence is sufficient, why does non-belief enjoy the benefit of the doubt?

It is most certain that we have all missed some things. We will never have all our questions answered (on earth). This is impossible. Like with the airplane, we must be willing to rely on and trust in the evidence, even if there is something we could have missed. There is a sufficiency in probability that we must be willing to live with. If we are not, we will forever be in a perpetual state of doubt. We will always be one answer away from faith and assurance.

I believe that the Christian faith is the most probable explanation to everything, even though I could come up with a thousand objections and possible alternatives. I also believe that the statement, “the sun will rise tomorrow” is only probable. I could come up with a thousand objections and doomsday scenarios that could poke holes in this theory. However, the possibility of alternatives does not amount to their probability. Just as it would be insane for me to bow a tentative knee in credence to alternatives to the sun rising tomorrow, so would it be insane for me to bow the knee to unbelief about Christianity just because I could bring up some possible objections.

There is a point when the evidence is sufficient, even if we missed something. There are some basic checks that we do before the flight of faith, and I encourage everyone to concern themselves with these. But when you start checking the aisle lights of the plane, the stability of the tray holders, the on-board telephone, and the possibility that a boa constrictor could have been maliciously planted in the cockpit to kill the pilots mid-flight, you have turned your quest for truth into an excuse for non-belief. This methodology does not work in any area of life, including your religious faith.  There comes a time when you must relax and cease giving your doubts control that their substance does not demand.

What if I missed something? I am sure I have, but I have not missed the main things and they persuade me to rest in Christ.

Next, I will talk about the second objection: “Someone knows something I don’t.”

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    7 replies to "What if You Missed Something?"

    • Nick

      Michael. Due to the recent “controversy” I think I’d also include a possible “Bible contradiction.” I have known some Christians who say that if there is one contradiction in the Bible that Christianity is not true and Jesus did not rise. That frightens me.

    • C Michael Patton


    • Don

      If by Bible contradiction you mean that in the original manuscripts and after all the information is in, the Holy Spirit inspired one human author to truly “contradict” another human author in the same God-breathed Scripture, that would, in my opinion, seem to raise some serious issues.

      That would raise the issue of the deity of the Holy Spirit and His ability to “inspire” Scripture in the truest sense. If I am missing something or seeing an issue that is not really there with an “erroneous” Scripture, please enlighten me.

    • Matt

      “Contradiction” is a difficult concept. From whose perspective? I know it’s almost cliche, but how many “contradictions” are the result of imposing a post-Enlightenment, scientific demand for exactness on the ancient authors of scripture? I believe scripture is God-breathed, but God also inspired prophets and writers who (by definition) are very human and who lived in cultures that were not 20th and 21st Western cultures.

    • Nick

      Don. It would mean we have to change our doctrine of inspiration, but it would not mean everything in the Bible is false.

      Matt. I agree entirely. We need to drop post-enlightenment thought. A great example of this is the so-called natural/supernatural distinction.

    • Don


      That sounds almost like capitulation to me. You said that “it would not mean everything in the Bible is false.” Do that leave open the possiblity that there may be some things, i.e., historical or otherwise, that may be false?

      That is a road I will leave untraveled.


    • Nick

      We dare not speak about having no fear and at the same time say we refuse to investigate an area. We cannot speak with conviction about Christianity if we are not willing to examine it.

      Yes. I’m willing to go there. If something is a contradiction, I’d have to change my view of inspiration, but I would not abandon Christianity. Note this is the exact same view of Dan Wallace in “The Case for the Real Jesus.” Christianity does not stand or fall on the Inerrancy of Scripture. It stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and nothing else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.