Fear and Trembling

Certainty is a noun describing what is “established as true or sure” ( The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary ). Large segments of our society see this freedom from doubt as the height of arrogance. We are constantly told, especially with respect to religion, that we cannot know the truth, communicate the truth, or expect others to follow the truth we know. It is refreshing to find a book like The Truth War by John MacArthur (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2007). This book is really a short commentary on the book of Jude. MacArthur is an able polemicist, and his writing is at its best when he forcefully conveys a point. He begins by expounding on the ground of truth, how we can know anything at all: Of course, God and truth are inseparable. Every thought about the essence of truth – what makes it “true,” and how we can possibly know anything for sure, quickly moves us back to God … it is not particularly surprising when someone who repudiates God rejects truth as well. ...

Many contemporary believers do not feel the need to have a rational basis for their Christian faith. For example, Robert Webber’s comment in Ancient-Future Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999, p. 185): …Christianity is not provable outside itself through the scientific method. One must come to the Christian faith believing that it is true and embrace it as such without any dependence on data outside the faith. Christianity requires trust, a believing embrace, a willingness to step inside its story apart from any dependence on historical, scientific, or rational persuasion. So, according to Webber, Christianity requires a blind leap of faith for entrance. I always think of the Indiana Jones movie where he must jump across a chasm not knowing whether there is anything to catch him as he falls. When he jumps, he falls onto a bridge that was hidden from view by exquisite camouflage. Is that kind of leap the requirement, or are there reasons to believe what we believe? Let’s l...

I am just about to finish the book Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches , Robert Webber, ed. It’s an interesting read, and a helpful introduction to the theological issues involved. (I expect several upcoming blogs entries on material found in this book.) One of the essays included raises some issues with me: “The Emerging Church and Embodied Theology,” by Doug Pagitt . Pagitt states on p. 137: I hold that a reading of history ought to instruct us to create ways of thought that are useful but temporary. Complex understandings meant for all people, in all places, for all times, are simply not possible. Language, situation, specific issues, and people’s own preferences and insecurity all are involved in any belief system. There is no way to make a statement of substantive belief without these kinds of issues at play. So one must make adjustments, even if they are slight, in order to remain faithful. Let’s focus on “Complex understandings meant for all people, in all places, for ...

I’ve spent the last few days reading a book from some in the Emergent Church conversation. I’ll identify and comment on this book over the next few weeks, but I did want to record a strong negative impression I have on my first skim of the book. I am becoming convinced that, no matter how strongly they say otherwise, many who identify themselves with emergent deny that propositional truth can be expressed and communicated with words. Of course, they are using words and sentences to explain their views while they are saying words and sentences don't work. This makes their assertions questionable upfront. But the implications of this line of thinking are massive. The gospel is by definition good news. If it’s good news, then it is news. News is made up of facts. Facts are propositions, where we link nouns and verbs with objects to convey information about reality. I hope we are not working ourselves into a mental condition such that we are becoming so mentally allergic to proposition...