I do a lot of sitting around coffee tables and speaking about God and the Church, and as far as I can tell there are, broadly speaking, two kinds of people who sit opposite me: those who are impressed by certitude, and those who aren’t.
I would put myself firmly in latter category. I have been certain about God, life and Church and been wrong too many times to pretend that I’m certain about my beliefs now. In fact, to be brutally honest, those who talk theology as if there is no mystery, no unknown, no room for doubt really annoy me.
Can we just state the obvious for a moment: as we are sitting across that coffee table from each other, we may agree that the Scriptures have more authority than either of us sitting at the table, and that it’s a solid idea to defer to them when confused; but we don’t agree that your interpretation of said Scriptures is nearly as powerful. You can be absolute about the Scriptures, but you have to be very careful when you extend that to your interpretation of them, and I know this may come as a surprise to some, but there is actually a difference.
There is a brand of church on the rise through the likes of Mark Driscol and John Piper (the Neo-Calvinists) who don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the two, and while I believe they have a great deal to offer, this is an error in judgement which will cause a lot of pain and division.
Why?
Well because you either agree with them on every point, or they will write you off as hell-bound heretics.
A great example in the last week or so is the promotional video for Rob Bell’s upcoming book called, ‘Love Wins’. Here it is:
Now whether you agree or disagree with the things he says in here, we have to acknowledge that this is only the promotional video; there is very little content here to be able to judge what he is actually saying. The video is designed to pique interest, the book holds the actual content. In fact I’m sure he goes to great lengths in the book to be true to Scripture as he unpacks this issue. I have heard he goes so far as to quote every mention of ‘Hell’ in the Bible, and then look at it in it’s context so as to gain a better understanding. I can’t wait to read it personally because, even though I may not agree with everything he says (I rarely read a book where I do), I have no doubt I will learn a great deal.
Unfortunately this isn’t everyone’s view. In fact the blog-sphere has been blazing this week with vitriolic hate speech from the aforementioned clan of western church. It seems they don’t feel the need to read the content for themselves; the mere suggestion that he may be saying something they don’t agree with is enough to attack. There has been much written, but I suppose the comment that annoyed me the most was John Piper who simply tweeted, “Goodbye Rob Bell”.
Goodbye from what?
Where’s he going?
Are you going somewhere?
Just the arrogance of this man who has placed himself in the position of arbiter of truth for all Christendom (another term I dislike).
Here are a couple of the comments from an online discussion I was involved in:
“Sigh – I’ve always been OK with Bell’s theology because I just ignored the crap that didn’t mean anything. He had some good points mixed among some mostly pointless stuff. This is different though – I haven’t read the articles yet, but just watched the promo video and it’s pretty clear that he’s gone from wishy washy to just plain bad theology. As far as Christianity goes it looks like he’s stepped out into something else – a distorted version of Christian theology. I guess it was almost inevitable given the progression of his theology through his other books and DVDs.”
“Ugh, I don’t think I even care enough. Bell just comes across as a trendy, pretentious ass. He has some good thoughts in his theology, but I’m totally over him now. I found some of the Nooma videos helpful over the years and Velvet Elvis was mostly good stuff for me as well as Everything Is Spiritual, but I just don’t care any more – he mixes his good thoughts with utterly pointless and vague comments. Most of the time he just asks questions and doesn’t even go any way towards even thinking of an answer – I think questions like that are great and very useful, but if that’s all you’re doing then don’t write books because really, what’s the point – people can ask questions on their own without Bell’s smug face doing it for them. I think I’d rather read someone who makes good points and minimises the pointless crap (and doesn’t look smug while doing it).”
Where does this stuff come from? It seems pretty strong. Why the over-cooked reaction? The only way people can talk like this and feel justified is if they consider themselves completely right, and this guy completely wrong. Surely no human being would be that arrogant and ignorant?
Sadly I think a lot are. Like I say, this kind of discussion lands people on one of two sides of the fence; either you are claiming certitude, or you are looking to ask better questions. This new Conservative Evangelicalism seems to be enforcing the former almost militantly, because in their minds there is no room for doubt.
My personal view is that doubt is actually essential for faith.
Let me explain.
During my final year at seminary we had a guy named Graham Codrington come and speak to us on a weekend away.
He began his talk asking us, “What is the opposite of Faith?”
Hands went up and from all quarters people offered ‘doubt’ as the answer.
He went on to say that faith and doubt are far from opposites; they are in fact bed-fellows. One can’t exist without the other. By way explanation he asked us whether we would need faith to believe in God if we were standing before Him physically right now? Most of us muttered ‘no’. He continued, “Of course you wouldn’t need faith, because you have all the evidence you need in front of you. Faith, by definition, requires doubt to even exist.”
He went on to make the point that it is possible for us as Pastors to rob people of their faith-journey because we paint an overly-simplistic picture of certitude on all matters. We have simple cut-and-paste answers to every problem, and we guilt people into compliance with those answers, even if secretly we know it’s way more complicated than that, and we actually don’t know. And I worry that this is what is happening in many Evangelical streams; that people are being robbed of their faith because they aren’t encouraged to doubt and question.
Doubt is essential to a mature faith journey.
Copying-and-Pasting theology is not faith.
Every spiritual figure I admire through history has gone through serious doubts.
St John of the Cross coined the phrase the ‘Dark Night of the Soul’ as he sat in a prison cell the size of a cupboard. He describes a complete unknowing, a void where nothing seemed to make sense anymore.
We know from reading Mother Theresa’s diaries that she acknowledged serious doubts, and yet continued her work with great faith until her dying day.
Søren Kierkegaard suggested that in the absence of doubt there is in fact no faith at all.
In the scriptures the Psalms are full of doubting, most of Job is an account of a man’s doubts and questions (which interestingly doesn’t constitute a win for the devil in the story), and just read Ecclesiastes if you want a solid dose of existential crisis
Even Jesus had His own ‘Dark Night’ in the Garden. He doesn’t want to do this any more and asks God to take Him off the hook, but eventually chooses to exercise great faith in the face of great doubt. Some commentators even suggest His cry of abandonment on the Cross was a loss of faith too (heretical I know, but I figure the guys who would have the biggest problem with this have already stopped reading).
You just get the feeling that this renewed surge of pushy, insecure fundamentalism would never allow for this kind of journey. They just hook their followers up to an IV drip of over-literal interpretations of scripture and frown on uncertainty. It pains me to think of the millions in churches who are experiencing their own ‘Dark Nights’ (I keep thinking of Batman:) and are unable to share their experiences, their doubts and fears, and be guided through because they are scared of getting the same treatment they see their leaders giving a guy like Rob Bell… before they’ve even read the book.
A message to people in these churches: It’s great that you’re in a place that takes Scripture seriously, but don’t be bullied into conformity by this lot! Good spiritual leaders don’t demand uniformity, but with great personal security they encourage people to journey and question honestly; Scripture seems to even encourage it.
Remember faith is not the absence of doubt, faith is journeying on, even when you have doubts.
And, whatever you do, don’t join in the bullying.
A bit of wisdom from St John of Mayer:
“Belief is a beautiful armour, but it makes for the heaviest sword.”
We have to learn to hold our theology lightly. To be as honest as we can in our searching of the scriptures, and our journey to know God more, acknowledging that we are still only clutching at straws in the dark. And we need to be as gracious to our fellow pilgrims who are just trying to do the same.
If you want to hear a great message on this stuff which will challenge your proverbial socks off, have a listen to this message from Peter Rollins on Pyro Theology.
good stuff sean. some very valid points. keep at it.
Nice post Sean. I can taste the urgency. Well done on not answering vitriollic fervour with…well…vitriolic fervour.
In the ‘Bell’s Hell’ (a nice change from the AC/DC track by a similar name) fuss most of the opposers seem to leap to the ‘false prophet/teacher’ club with which they defend the gospel (as if the gospel needed defense, but such is another point).
My question therefore is, if Bell and Rollins and McLaren and Bono and anyone else who proposes that the kingdom of heaven belongs to people other than just those who belong to right wing churches – are not false prophets, then who is? What is a false prophet?
And don’t say Oprah.
What would a church that accepted the role of doubt in our spiritual lives be like? It seems to me that most people expect churches to be ‘certain’ because who would want to listen to a pastor who did not have total confidence in his/her “product”? – not totally believe what they are selling? And I suppose that most pastors see that as ‘their job’ (i.e. to be – or at least appear to be – ‘certain’).
The Alpha course sells itself using a person “bringing their questions” implying that the church can give you all the answers. Of course the most it can do is give you more / different ways to think about the questions (and introduce a few you may not have known you had).
Ultimately the pretence of total certainly does everyone a disservice. It pretends that ‘the pastor’ has all the answers (and so is somehow ‘better’ than those of us who don’t). And (as you point out in your piece) it ignores the need for faith by treating what can only – at best – be tentative propositions as though they are facts.
And BTW what is ‘a fact’? Nothing more than a proposition that (in Poperian terms) has not yet been refuted.
Karen Armstrong points out in her books that this ‘certainty’ attitude is a modern concept – traditionally the church and its early theologians put everything second to the great mystery of God.
So I can kinda understand why Rob Bell is attacked for asking questions rather than dictating answers. It’s against the grain of what churches have come to be. So maybe a church that does not expound certainty is not a ‘church’.
Some where / some people who explore their faith from a position of doubt maybe can’t be a church as most people understand it / want it to be. So what is it then?
Again, we are not alone. The sickening feeling in the pit or my stomach reserved for the Institutionalised church once again rears its ugly head at the comments made by Rob Bell regarding the Gandhi quote.
And so too with the comments you make regarding the arrogance of these fools.
“It its the fear of uncertainty that drives those who are so certain.” (me)
Why can’t we just journey through life without being forced down some man made path?
Good shit, this is.
I love the bit about my uncle Mahatma burning in hell.
And i might be wrong, but I am fairly convinced that it all starts with the capitalist way of thinking that puts money first. the thinking goes like this:
we need money to run this church. we need people to bring in the money. people are drawn toward certainty and confidence and are put off by doubt, therefore let us put up a front to show the people that we are certain about all things so that they will be attracted and bring in their money and we can keep adorning our buildings and paying salaries and making sure we have the latest technological gizmos and filter coffees.
and once again i am reminded of why i walked away from the church so many years ago, and why this conflict still pursues me.
and once again, i totally understand everyone of my hippie friends who are filled with love for mankind and nature, but remain as far away from christianity as one tries to stay away from the HI Virus and herpes.
it’s funny on the one hand… and then on the other hand i sometimes feel like blowing sh*t up!
end of rant.
peace be with you all.
I recently had a chat with a friend who said my wife is going to hell.
I felt sorry for him because I think when you begin to see the world from a loving perspective you can’t even imagine that hell even exists. Something I’ve been wondering about for a while now.
I love my wife so much and I’ve read God loves her more than that so where does hell fit in?
I recommend CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce
Sorry about that man. That’s ridiculously hurtful. I read a really helpful book a while ago which got me thinking about this stuff. It’s called “The last word, and the word after that.” by Brian McLaren. See if you can track it down if you can’t wait for Rob’s book to come out.
Thanks for encouraging a place where i can as Bruce Wayne, this cape was getting heavy..
Thanks Sean, I’ve enjoyed reading the debate that has ensued after the promotional video and your thoughts are timely. I’m currently reading ‘Justification: God’s plan and Paul’s Vision’ by NT Wright and his main sparring partner is John Piper. I get the impression that John Piper is painting himself into a corner, which is a great petty because he does have a lot to offer. I hope that the gap can be bridged.
All in all, the concept of paradox needs to be recognised in areas where certainty cannot be ascertained, but I don’t think we should go fuzzy on logic. In different philosophical and worldview eras we have tended to lift one aspect of our humanity above others (reason or feelings, revelation or tradition, or empiricism etc) and as we live in this era of flux called post-modernity we should be wary of slipping into one of these modes of being once again. While we cannot reach certainty, that does not mean that directly contradictory statements can both be true. Or as C.S. Lewis puts it, 2 + 2 cannot equal 7 and 3, but we can recognise that one answer is closer to the correct one than the other. As in this case, they can both be wrong, but they cannot both be right.
@ Mark, ‘The Alpha course sells itself using a person “bringing their questions” implying that the church can give you all the answers.’
Some churches market the Alpha course as a course which answers all your questions, but the official stance of Alpha is one where a person is allowed to ask any question and explore the answers in a nonthreatening environment. Most of the small group leaders have recently started following Jesus and by no means have many answers, let alone the right ones (if they exist). I know at our church we try to create the opportunity for people to be heard, because very few people take the time to listen nowadays. But other churches may market it differently. The developers of the course cannot and do not want to monitor every church that runs it and even if they did, people would still implement it incorrectly. Perhaps you have seen it implemented in the way you describe, I just wanted to offer the vision that the developers had when they offered it to other churches to use.
@Philip. I appreciate your comments about Alpha. I have myself assisted in running the Alpha course several times, and always enjoyed the opportunity to hear others, present the “official line” and discuss other points of view. So I endorse what you say. I was using the way it is commonly presented / marketed as en example of apparent certainty.
I also hear with what you say about uncertainty not meaning that “directly contradictory statements cannot both be true.” This is clearly problematic if you are going to adhere to a system of beliefs such as Christianity. (Though physics has shown that apparent contradiction is the norm in the physical world, e.g. wave/particle duality). The point is that the best (well, better at least) way to arrive at some deeper level of personal understanding is though questioning, doubting and reformulating — not *just* being spoon-fed “answers”, and condemning other views to oblivion (as in “Goodbye Rob Bell”).
Certitude seems to be a prerequisite for absolute truth. How, for instance, can I warn a teenager against the intake of habit forming drugs when I am not certain that it could kill him? Imagine saying to him: “Well, I can’t be certain whether opium can kill you cause I’ve never taken it myself. The best you can do is to continue using the stuff to see whether you are going to end up in the morgue.”
Similarly, certitude is an absolute necessity when your final destination after death is the issue. Unfortunately the journey and not your destination has become the focal point in the Emergent Church of which Rob Bell is a key figure, as you may know. The hard and fast maxim they love to use, is: “We’re all on a journey together searching for truth. While we’re at it, tell me your story” or “we’re all part of this great conversation” (except those fundamental weirdos who think they have the only truth). The are not welcome in our illustrious tribe of conversationalists and coffee drinkers unless they repent (“metanoia” move their minds beyond the normal run of the mill truths) The story may be the most heretical imaginable but that does not matter in the very least because none of us can be certain that we know the truth. So let’s just rather embrace the god of paradoxes. That’s the least frictional and most benevolent path we can take.
Certitude is the most common application in the Bible. In fact “to know with an unflinching certainty” is the bedrock of salvation. Jesus, whom the emergents claim to follow said: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3). John the apostle of love elaborated on His words when he said: ” I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” To believe in Jesus is equal to believing in his immutable doctrines (Truth). (2 John verse 9).
Sadly Mother Theresa never had the assurance of her salvation and neither did Pope John Paul II.
indeed, the journey is important but then I must be absolutely certain that my journey is on the right path (There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death – Proverbs 14:12).
Please bear in mind that I am not a Calvinist like John Piper or Mark Driscoll. There’s is a vile doctrine which deserves to be despised.
I found this and it really encouraged me:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/2285_Solving-the-Problem-of-Doubt?q=doubt
LOL!
It seems to me that doubt and ‘faith’ have to rest on the same trust in God. I am trusting in the God who is there when I am free to question my beliefs about him. I trust there is someone bigger than my formulations, that an understanding of him is not reducible, that his shoulders are big enough to bear all my ranting and raving and questioning; I trust that if there is someone there, he is there whether I believe in him or not, and that I may be able to find him out and yet never reach an end of learning, that he can be more mysterious than everyone else and everything else in life, and yet still cystal clear. It seems that whether I describe something that people call doubt or that people call faith, it is all predicated on the initial premise that God is there creating, caring for, rescuing, renewing.
With the whole hell question, someone got me in a tiz a while ago by saying “God is glorified in sending people to hell”… so I went off and read a load of theology and kept going back at the bible on it all. I still don’t have a formula on it, I just don’t mind that now. I noticed two things about the bible’s mentions of God’s final judgement that helped with this: a) It’s to be publically reccognisable as fairness and justice b) It’s Jesus doing the judgeing, I trust him. So what happens when lovely & loved friends die, or rapists and murderers, or people whose life and culture I’ve barely heard of or understood? They meet God, they meet Jesus, and I trust him to do the right thing.
@ Tom Lessing:
Truth be told, at 1st glance your post make the hair on my back (the few that I have) stand up on end. But then it came to me. You seem to be someone who “needs” that “certainty”. And thus, you have found a formulas/system that works for you and that is all good and well. Therefore I am truly happy for you that you have found contentment in your Spirituality. You seem balanced in your belief. Unlike the extremists mentioned above, from both parties.
What I think is being questioned here though is not so much “certitude” (yes, it is the word that is being thrown around here), but rather peoples need to enforce their “certitude”, as it were, onto other who see thing differently.
The real issue here for me is one simple, yet rare attribute “Tolerance”.
Too often we force out beliefs onto others not “so that they may be saved” but rather so that out ego can be boosted by the thought that “our group/Truth is bigger/better”.
If we really trusted the Spirit, then we would trust It to lead and guide those who are earnestly seeking truth. Without having to force our opinion (cause that is what they are, opinions) onto them.
Personally I do not hold to any ONE persons “teaching/belief/philosophy”. Because they are mere fallible humans at the end of the day, bias to their own cultures, circumstances and experiences.
Even the Great disciple Peter and apostle Paul had a difference of opinion, and this while Christs words where still fresh off His lips.
Let us take the “Golden Nuggets/Pearls” that are cast before us and allow the Spirit to do with them as It wishes within each of us. After all, ALL Truth is Gods Truth.
My 2c
Hi Lennit
What if I quoted Jesus to certify my certitude? Would that convince you that ALL Truth is NOT God’s Truth? OK. here goes: ” I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” The emergents believe that there’s truth in all religions and that we only need to tap into those particular truths because they come from God. How can that be true when they reject God’s essence of Truth, his Son Jesus Christ?
Wow! just think of it. Jesus Christ not only always speaks the truth; He is the very essence of Truth. It’s very nice to say that ALL truth is God’s truth but who decides what is the Truth and what is the Lie? You? . . . I? . . . They? . . . We? No! of course not. He alone who IS Truth has that mandate. So, what does that tell us? If you want to help someone find the Truth then you ought to point them to Jesus, not so?
I agree that we should trust the Spirit of God to lead and to guide those who need to know the Truth. But I really don’t think it’s such a good thing to mistrust any ONE person’s teaching/belief/philosophy. Do you mistrust Paul’s teachings? If you do you are mistrusting the teachings of Jesus Himself because Paul received the Gospel directly from Him. On the other hand, it is a good thing to mistrust any ONE person’s teaching but your mistrust must not merely be for the sake of mistrust. You ought to mistrust them because you have evaluated their teachings in the light of God’s Word which is the Truth and found them wanting. In fact, Paul said if you do that you are indeed a spiritual man (1 Cor 2:14 and 15).
You say the real issue here is “Tolerance.” Once again, tolerance can be a good thing but there is something much better than tolerance and that is Godly Love. Godly love boldly tells people that Jesus IS the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life and that no one can come to the Father but by Him. Or does his claim that He IS all those things amount to intolerance?
Hi Sean
I struggle with this concept of interpretation of scripture. I realize their are certain debatable issues in scripture but for the most part they are peripheral ones. Even today I listened to a Driscoll sermon and I disagreed with what he said but it wasnt a fundamental issue, however, for the most part, I find that if you read the scriptures plainly, it says what it says as far as I can see. Otherwise how can the passage that goes, ‘all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching correcting and training in righteousness be true. If a Pastor wants to rebuke me for an area of sin in my life and reads me a passage of scripture to show me the error of my ways, i can turn around and say, well thats your interpretation not mine.
As far as I can see this leaves the church very vunerable as your interpretation becomes sacred and what a passage actually says is secondary.
On your comment : In fact, to be brutally honest, those who talk theology as if there is no mystery, no unknown, no room for doubt really annoy me.
I believe that Jesus addressed this in calling us to a childlike faith. For instance, a subject like the incarnation is simple to understand by a plain reading, but the reality of that is something so infinite our short lives and limited brainpower are not long enough to understand it. Even though acknowlege the mystery I dont doubt that the fact is true