Clearly?

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  Romans 1:20  NASB

Without excuse – Consider an implication of Paul’s opening declaration.  No, not the usual one about how everyone should know there is a God from “natural” theology (the creation itself).  No, what I want you to consider is the implication that exploration of the world cannot be harmful to faith.  If in fact God is the author of all, then I should be able to search it all and still find His handiwork.  I don’t have to be afraid to dig.  I don’t have to shudder at the thought that my faith might come unglued if I look too deeply.  Haggai Misgav makes some telling comments on the fear of disconfirming external evidence when it comes to archeological finds.  Those who fear what might be discovered take on a form of belief that prizes intellectual security at all costs.  Misgav writes:

It appears that in the present generation the prevalent religious approach in both the public and private spheres is one of “simple faith.” The intention is not necessarily to the Breslov understanding of the term, but rather to a belief that is not grounded in theological analysis and does not accept the authority of reason in matters of faith. This approach sanctifies naïveté not only with respect to issues of thought and philosophy, but also in literary matters. The Bible is not a subject for research and inquiry. Its words are true and just according to their simple, literal meaning. Even ideas like the position expressed by Maimonides in Guide of the Perplexed (3:3) that certain biblical passages are metaphorical have no place in the intellectual world of those who adhere to this approach. This school of thought perceives the use of new information, especially from external sources, and all the more so from nonreligious and non-Jewish sources, as a danger. The more enlightened adherents to this approach are aware of this “dangerous” information, but call its veracity into question and often deride attempts to interpret it.[1]

Proponents of this view seem to argue:

. . . even if we set aside the possibility of disproving the authenticity of the Bible . . , we are proceeding on a path that was unknown to our forefathers, the classical biblical commentators. They were the creators of the intellectual path that Judaism has followed throughout the generations, and these new approaches have not been subjected to their scrutiny. Are the insights that might arise from this new approach consistent with Orthodox thought? Principles of faith are not factual matters; the conceptual structure of Judaism rests on the authority of rabbinic scholars and their instructions. If we expand our conceptual basis to include new information, what will happen to the ancient, preexisting sources of authority? Who will be able to provide spiritual guidance to a generation for whom the conceptual foundations are completely new?[2]

Perhaps you’re familiar with this approach under the Christian banner “protecting the flock,” which usually means banning some things from the view of congregants.  “Just believe” is a recipe for closedminded protection from the world.  But the world is God’s world!  What are you afraid you will find?

Of course, this doesn’t mean you throw caution to the wind and pursue every possible avenue.  Evil exists.  Be cautious. But don’t be afraid.  Don’t refuse to investigate because it might challenge what you believe.  Of course serious investigation will challenge faith.  What good would it be if it didn’t.  The tree that survives the storm learns to bend without breaking.

Topical Index: fear, investigation, faith, security, Romans 1:20

[1] Haggai Misgav, “Archaeology and the Bible,” in The Believer and the Modern Study of the Bible (Academic Studies Press, 2019), p. 516.

[2] Ibid.