Can Saying I Do Not Know Be an Act of Christian Honesty?

An answer carries another person’s trust

Someone asks a question after a Bible study, during a meeting, or while you are explaining a task. You recognize the subject, and everyone is waiting. A plausible answer begins forming before you have decided whether it is true. Saying “I do not know” may feel like losing the room. Yet the person asking needs something better than our ability to keep talking.

James places a particular responsibility on teachers, who “shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). The next verse includes the writer among those who stumble. A. K. M. Adam observes how a teacher’s influence can amplify an error as others learn and repeat it. Acknowledging that teachers can be mistaken should deepen our care about what we teach. ^{1, 2}

Margaret Aymer follows James’s treatment of speech through to the contradiction of blessing God while cursing people made in God’s likeness. The hearer is a person to be treated with care. If an impressive answer leaves that person misled, our fluent performance has failed a responsibility more important than appearing informed. ³

Bernard Williams distinguishes the effort to form accurate beliefs from sincerity in expressing what we believe. Both matter. We may sincerely repeat a guess and still have done too little to establish it. Christian honesty therefore concerns the preparation of an answer as well as whether we consciously tell a lie. ⁴

Dennis Hiebert adds that an assertion can overreach even when delivered in a meek manner. A soft voice and a modest introduction cannot make an unsupported conclusion reliable. The helpful question is what our words give the listener reason to believe, including what they imply about how well we know. ⁵

Name the gap accurately

Allan Hazlett distinguishes a belief about a subject from a judgment about how well we know it. We can offer a considered answer while admitting a limitation in its basis. “This is my present understanding” says something different from “This has been confirmed.” Giving the difference its proper weight helps the listener decide how much to rely on us. ⁶

A review by Anne Marthe van der Bles and colleagues distinguishes uncertainty about a fact or estimate from uncertainty about the evidence beneath it. That makes specificity useful. We might know where a statement appears while being unsure how it applies here. We might have an approximate total while still waiting for a complete record. Name the uncertain part instead of making the whole answer vague. ⁷

John Hardwig’s discussion of professional responsibility makes another distinction: a question we cannot answer may still be answerable by someone else. “I do not know” should not quietly expand into “Nobody knows.” Where appropriate, identify the person with relevant knowledge and help the question reach them. Referring a question can be a responsible use of our position. ⁸

Elizabeth Tenney and colleagues tested credibility through staged accounts of an accident. Participants evaluating the witnesses responded to how confidence fitted accuracy, rather than simply preferring the most confident or most cautious speaker. The practical aim is proportion: make a clear statement where you have grounds, and acknowledge the boundary where those grounds run out. ⁹

Candor does not guarantee applause. In British experiments, van der Bles and colleagues found that the effects of communicating uncertainty varied with its form. Verbal uncertainty could reduce trust; numerical ranges often had little effect. We owe a truthful account even when a listener would prefer certainty. Honesty serves the person’s understanding, including when it costs us immediate approval. ¹⁰

Jonathan Kominsky and colleagues also found adult participants distinguishing between knowable answers and implausibly precise claims in a scripted expertise task. The uncertain informant supplied a reason for the limit. In ordinary conversation, an explanation can likewise help: the record is incomplete, the question needs another kind of expertise, or we have not yet checked. Use the explanation that is actually true. ¹¹

Let a question expose what needs learning

Proverbs describes an active desire to learn: “The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge” (Proverbs 18:15). Admitting a gap can express that desire. We have recognized a question worth hearing and made room to discover something we did not previously understand. ¹

In a small Yale study, Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil asked participants to explain familiar devices in detail. Participants’ estimates of their understanding fell when they tried to supply the explanation. Familiarity with a name can conceal a gap in understanding. Before confidently explaining something, try stating the steps in plain language. The place where the explanation breaks down may reveal what still needs checking. ¹²

In an American online survey, Elizabeth Krumrei Mancuso and colleagues found intellectual humility associated with less claiming familiarity with invented concepts. It was not associated with being less assertive in that study. There is room to say plainly that a term is unfamiliar without treating that admission as a judgment on our general intelligence or our right to participate. ¹³

Alan Jacobs describes how preparing a rebuttal can prevent us from hearing what someone is saying. Answering responsibly begins with understanding the question. “Are you asking what this sentence means, or how we should act in this situation?” can uncover two different needs. An accurate answer to the wrong question may still leave the person without help. ¹⁴

Dennis Whitcomb and colleagues describe humility as attending to relevant limitations and responding to them. Merely admitting a gap can leave it untouched. If the question concerns a responsibility we have accepted, we may need to read further, check the record, ask a clearer question, or bring in assistance. Our next action shows whether the admission matters to us. ¹⁵

Tenelle Porter and colleagues tested responses to learning tasks that included predetermined feedback about success and failure. Participants encouraged toward intellectual humility chose a tutorial on the area identified as weak more often than those encouraged toward certainty. The useful direction is toward learning: an exposed gap can become a reason to seek explanation instead of investing all our effort in defending an appearance of competence. ¹⁶

Rik Peels and Duncan Pritchard argue that recognizing an inadequate basis for a belief can serve education. A temporary pause in claiming an answer may help someone investigate more carefully. We need not rush to fill every such pause. Sometimes a conversation becomes more fruitful when both people can name what needs finding out. ¹⁷

Care enough to pursue a sound answer

Quassim Cassam’s account of intellectual vice directs attention to habits that obstruct inquiry. A person can lack an answer because the matter is difficult, or because they have repeatedly refused to attend to it. Those situations call for different responses. When our role includes knowing a procedure or explaining a passage, acknowledging a gap should prompt suitable effort to address it. ¹⁸

Cassam also distinguishes a lack of concern for truth from an honest recognition of uncertainty. An admission can become an evasion if we use it to end a conversation whose outcome affects somebody else. We cannot investigate everything, but we can care whether our answer is dependable and be clear about what assistance we can actually provide. ¹⁹

Nathan Ballantyne examines what happens when expertise in one field becomes confidence about another. Knowing a subject well does not supply every neighboring skill. A respected church leader, experienced worker or accomplished student can still meet a question outside their competence. We can explore it together while keeping that exploration distinct from an authoritative conclusion. ²⁰

Jamie Carlin Watson qualifies overly rigid boundaries between fields: some problems require overlapping competencies and cooperation. Seeking help need not mean finding a single person who knows everything. One person may understand the document, another the equipment, and another the circumstances in which it will be used. Explain which contribution supports which part of the answer. ²¹

Josh Reeves argues that Christian discipleship involves continuing transformation in how we know. Dependence on the Holy Spirit does not dispense with learning from people who have developed relevant competence. We can receive a careful explanation with gratitude while examining its grounds. Confidence in God gives us no reason to pretend we have instantly acquired another person’s training. ²²

In an interview with Derek Schuurman, Kelly Kapic distinguishes human finitude from sinful failure. We were never required to possess unlimited knowledge. That recognition gives inquiry a humane scale. Address the question that belongs to the present responsibility, seek appropriate help, and accept that many other things will remain beyond what one person can investigate. ²³

Make room for honest contributions

Alessandra Tanesini examines the opposite danger from overstatement: people can be pushed toward withholding what they know. Humility should not demand that the least influential person in a room repeatedly minimize a useful contribution. Someone can acknowledge a limit and still say, “I checked this part, and here is what I found.” Make space for that contribution to be heard. ²⁴

Amy Edmondson’s study of teams in one office furniture company found perceived safety for interpersonal risks associated with learning behaviors, including asking for help and admitting errors. In a church meeting or workplace, consider the response a question receives. A leader who thanks someone for identifying an unclear instruction makes room for a useful conversation about it. ²⁵

Hayden Godfrey’s interviews with British lecturers and postgraduate students include accounts of competitive or hostile discussion making self expression difficult. Their reported experiences draw attention to the cost a group can impose on speaking. Mocking a person’s uncertainty may secure silence while leaving the original misunderstanding untouched. A patient follow up can give the questioner a way back into the discussion. ²⁶

Don Davis and colleagues distinguish intellectual humility from general humility in research with American undergraduates. A pleasant impression does not tell us everything about how someone handles ideas and correction. Tenelle Porter and colleagues’ later review likewise distinguishes general self descriptions from humility expressed in a particular situation. Attend to how the present question is handled instead of awarding ourselves a permanent label. ^{27, 28}

Kasim Khorasanee treats openness as a process that includes listening, assessing and updating. William Hare similarly argues that openness serves the search for truth without requiring equal acceptance of every opinion. We can give a serious question a hearing, examine the answer, and reach a conclusion. Remaining teachable need not turn every settled responsibility into endless hesitation. ^{29, 30}

Trust God while you keep learning

In John 9, the man whose sight Jesus restores answers a question about Jesus’ location with “I know not” (John 9:12). Later he testifies firmly about receiving sight, and finally confesses faith in Jesus. Robert Hoch draws attention to this developing testimony. The chapter gives us a person who can acknowledge something unknown while speaking about what he does know. ^{1, 31}

Paul writes, “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). Frank Crouch reads these words within Paul’s appeal for love in a conflicted community. Paul includes himself in the limitation. Knowledge that remains partial still has a place, but it gives its possessor no permission to treat another member with contempt. ^{1, 32}

Finlay Malcolm distinguishes trusting God from assessing whether a particular human communication truly comes from God. That difference matters when someone asks whether our impression settles their question. We can trust the Lord and still examine our own interpretation carefully. Spiritual language should help us speak truthfully about the basis of a claim rather than conceal that basis from the hearer. ³³

Pentecostal writer George Paul Wood calls for humility in interpreting God’s Word while depending on the Spirit. First Corinthians itself places spiritual gifts within the body and directs speech toward others’ edification. An answer that overwhelms a questioner with unexplained authority deserves examination. The Spirit’s help can accompany careful reading, patient explanation and readiness to receive correction. ^{1, 34}

Laura Callahan argues that strong Christian faith can coexist with freedom from the need to vindicate our intellectual standing. A challenge need not become a contest over our worth. We may explain what Christians confess about Christ while admitting that we cannot answer every historical question or resolve every difficult passage at once. Faithfulness includes distinguishing the gospel from our own reputation for having an answer. ³⁵

Grant Macaskill proposes receiving knowledge as a gift to be shared for another person’s benefit. That gives both knowledge and its limits a different place in conversation. Offer the understanding you have, acknowledge what is missing, and help the other person continue. A truthful “I do not know” can leave room for the next faithful act: listening, learning, explaining, or asking someone else to help. ³⁶