In my previous post—which might be helpful to read before continuing—I confessed my tendency of being deeply skeptical of relatively new and untested claims, outlining what I referred to as the “common features” of post-evangelicalism and briefly describing why I have major reservations with certain emerging trends. My hope is that by the end of this series, you’ll see that the reason for my skepticism isn’t because I feel the need to “protect” my tribe or tradition, nor is it because I’m fearful of what it might mean if these things are true. No, the reason I’m skeptical is that I don’t find them to be particularly strong claims.
Not only that, but being in spiritual conversations with non-believers/agnostics for the past two years as a church planter, I’ve noticed that I’m not alone in my skepticism of these views. I don’t think they’re likely very sustainable. And I think that while a lot of people share my deep suspicion, many people from within the Christian tradition don’t feel like they can give voice to it without being ridiculed or put down as those who are ignorantly holding onto their tradition rather than simply going where the evidence takes them. Given all of that, I’d like to work through each one of these claims here so that we can see where the evidence actually seems to lead. Here are all five of them again, by way of reminder:
Rebuke of Certainty/Embrace of Doubt
Distrust in Orthodoxy/Embrace of (an Historically Unorthodox) New Orthodoxy
Rejection of Biblical Clarity & Inerrancy/Embrace of a Different Kind of Authority
Distrust of Historical Biblical Ethics/Embrace of Modern Progressive Ethics
Suspicion of Scriptural Means for Ministry/Embrace of the Pragmatic or Post-Modern
As you’ll notice, each one of these describe both a feature of evangelicalism with which post-evangelicalism disagrees along with what the movement has come to embrace instead. In other words, I want to be careful not to merely define post-evangelicalism by what it is against in a negative sense (though even the name of the movement demonstrates that this is obviously part of its identity) but also what it embraces positively. My goal is to engage with both aspects, but for the sake of time we will only deal with the “rebuke of certainty” in this article, coming back to the “embrace of doubt” in a couple of weeks.
Okay. Having said all of that, I’d encourage you to grab some coffee, find a place to sit and read without distraction, and engage this first issue with me.
Rebuke of Certainty
One of the cornerstones—perhaps the cornerstone, from my perspective—of the post-evangelical movement is what we’ve referred to as the “rebuke of certainty.” While some might think that the word “rebuke” is a bit strong in describing the post-evangelical posture toward “certainty,” I believe it to be accurate. The claim being made is that evangelicals are idolatrous and sinful for claiming to know with a high level of certainty what the Bible says or doesn’t say regarding even some doctrines that historically have been viewed by all three major branches of Christendom as being fairly straight-forward. And this is helpful to consider at the front end. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism went through schism and reformation, and yet even in the midst of all of that, they still continued to maintain something of a broad agreement throughout church history on a whole host of issues that now seem to be up for grabs interpretively (e.g., the Trinity, biblical ethics, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc.). In addition to that, as a reformed protestant, the central issue of the protestant reformation—the question “what is the gospel”—is also seemingly up for grabs.
Where We Find Agreement
Now, the broad agreement here is that of course it’s possible for Christians to claim far too much certainty regarding matters in Scripture that are not made clear (e.g. the nature of the millennial kingdom in Revelation, the way in which our free will interacts with God’s sovereignty, certain details about the creation narrative, etc.). Some of the things we find in Scripture simply do not provide us with clarity, and of course there will always be Christians who find themselves altogether too certain on matters like these. This is a claim with which many mainstream reformed evangelicals would agree.
Where We Find Confusion
Part of the problem with the conversation itself revolves around the use of the word “certainty.” The way that most people define that word in this conversation probably falls in line with the first definition of “certainty” listed in the Oxford dictionary: “Firm conviction that something is the case.” But while this is where most people’s minds go when they hear the word “certainty,” I’d argue that this confuses the matter significantly and probably causes people to either talk past each other or not allow for the person with whom they are dialoguing to enter the conversation with the same certainties that they allow themselves. The second definition is probably the better one in describing the actual issue here, but we’ll get to that later. For the time being, let’s unpack why this commonly understood definition probably makes the “rebuke of certainty” argument fatally flawed from the very beginning, which is one of the many reasons I’m so skeptical.
A Firm Conviction That You Shouldn’t Have Firm Conviction
If what post-evangelicals mean when they say that “certainty is wrongheaded” is that “having firm convictions is wrongheaded” (first definition), then I’m sorry, but this is simply not a tenable or credible claim. Post-evangelicals themselves have a firm conviction that the biblical authors are not as clear as Evangelicals (and more than a few agnostic/secular biblical scholars) believe them to be on a whole host of issues. And—listen—it’s entirely okay to have firm convictions. Please hear me on this. Having firm convictions that something is the case is unavoidable. Post-evangelicals often argue passionately that evangelical claims about biblical certainty are wrong and that their approach to the Bible is to be preferred. This is argued with firm conviction. And that’s okay. There’s no reason to try to step around it.
Additionally, this isn’t some kind of trick or magician’s sleight of hand. It’s not a silly “gotcha” game. Listen to me, here. Examining/questioning whether or not a statement is self-defeating is basic-level investigation into the truthfulness of a claim. It’s one very important means of verifying or falsifying a claim. And in this case, it’s demonstrable. It’s evident on the claims themselves. From within post-evangelicalism, there does not seem to be any lack of firm convictions as it relates to the belief that evangelicals are wrong and post-evangelicals are right in assessing how we should approach our Bibles.
Where exactly is the openness to evangelical viewpoints in the post-evangelical world? Where do post-evangelicals seem to lack firm conviction that inerrancy is a modern framework and that the need for biblical clarity is a post-reformation conviction? Where do post-evangelicals seem to lack firm conviction that the Bible doesn’t speak clearly on a whole host of issues? If certainty means “firm conviction that something is the case,” I’m not sure how dialogue could possibly be even-handed. Post-evangelicals probably can’t (or shouldn’t, right?) tell evangelicals to check their firm convictions at the door when it seems that their viewpoints are characterized by a similar level of conviction. It seems far more beneficial for everyone involved if we all just own up to the firmness of our conviction rather than using language that suggests a false sense of subjectivity.
As an important aside, if you find yourself disagreeing with what I’m arguing, that’s obviously okay and I’m genuinely happy to have you reading and interacting. But I do feel the need to point out that in that case, you do, in fact, disagree. And by definition what that means is that you have a conviction that my view is wrong, in the same way that evangelicals have a conviction your view is wrong. Can we agree on this? Can we see why the word “certainty” causes such a huge problem here? Can we either change our language or be more precise with our definitions so that everyone is able to come to the table equally with their convictions rather than just those pretending not to have any, treating one another as we would want to be treated? It seems that for genuine conversation to take place we need a different approach with our language that is more honest and forthcoming.
A Possible Way Forward: Honestly Acknowledge Your Convictions
As we’ve just seen, if what we mean by certainty is that evangelicals have firm convictions while post-evangelicals do not, we’re not being realistic or fair in our description of what’s actually being said. It is self-defeating to claim that your firm conviction is that evangelicals shouldn’t have firm convictions.
But if what we mean by “certainty” is more in line with the second definition from Oxford—“the quality of [something] being reliably true”—then I think we are on far more secure grounds for having discussion. In other words, if we are saying that post-evangelicals say with firm conviction, to adapt the sentence used under this second definition from Oxford, “there is a bewildering lack of clarity in the Bible,” whereas evangelicals say with conviction that “the Bible is remarkably clear on these issues,” it seems to me that we can finally have a fair discussion in which the two positions can be equally examined and critiqued. In other words, nobody is let off the hook. The easiest way to not have to defend your view against examination or see it falsified is to claim not to have any views at all! But if a claim is to be believed, that approach simply won’t cut it.
Certainty or Clarity?
It seems to me that evangelical Christians aren’t the only ones who are noticing this problem, and it’s one that seems to have a simple fix. In other words, you are more than justified in having suspicions and skepticism of any view that might claim to have no firm convictions while disagreeing firmly with yours. In addition, nobody should feel ashamed that they have firm convictions. That shame has been shaped more by the cultural moment we find ourselves in than the actual beliefs of the individual.
And this is why it might be preferable to stop using “certainty” as the word-of-choice here and to start using “biblical clarity.” The real issue is whether or not the author in a particular place in Scripture is clearly saying something or if he’s deciding to keep something unclear. That kind of clarity or obscurity is more than possible to identify—we do it every day. You’re doing it right now as you read this post. I’m doing it as I read critiques from those who disagree. Often times I’ve heard the objection, “who gets to decide which passages are the clear passages and which ones are obscure?” But of course this is absurdly overstated. If we had no way of discerning that which is clearly stated from that which is obscure, we wouldn’t be able to communicate. I’m not saying we ever do it perfectly, but the idea that it’s somehow a futile enterprise makes language itself a futile enterprise. And I don’t think we really believe that.
Not only does this idea undermine communication in general, but as Don Carson noted in his recent article in Themelios, it’s simply not how the Bible describes itself. Speaking specifically about this issue of certainty, he writes,
“We commonly speak of human knowing without making omniscience the criterion of true knowing. This is true even in the Bible. For example, Luke tells Theophilus that although many people had undertaken to hand down reports of Jesus’ life and ministry as reported by the eyewitnesses, he himself carefully ‘investigated everything from the beginning,’ and then ‘decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught’ (Luke 1:3–4). Luke uses words that are entirely appropriate to human knowing, to human certainty; he is not promising omniscient knowledge to Theophilus. Again, John tells his believing readers that he is writing his first epistle ‘so that you may know that you have eternal life’: he is not writing so that they may become omniscient with respect to their knowledge of their status. When Paul encourages Timothy to become ‘a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth’ (2 Tim 2:15), he is anticipating that Timothy will become a faithful interpreter of Scripture, but not that he will become an omniscient interpreter of Scripture.”
The Bible does not describe itself as a mysterious book of confusion. The authors of the Bible speak with the stated assumption that the intended meaning that they are writing is understandable and that we can, in fact, have confidence in the clarity of their words. This is the reason that, throughout the history of biblical interpretation, Christians have had agreement on many of the central issues in Scripture that we now find consistently challenged by surrounding culture. And this is the reason that you can, in fact, be certain of the clearly stated revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s because of this that while we are to always be patient with those who doubt, the Scriptures do not describe doubt as a virtue to be sought after but rather encourages and exhorts the Christian to the strengthen his/her faith in the midst of doubt. More on that next time.
In Summary
And so, in summary, it’s useful to read all sides of the issue. Don’t just take my word for it. Don’t just read what evangelicals say about different parts of Scripture. Read what secular, non-believing scholars of the Bible say about many of these things as well. See if the the majority of biblical scholarship really thinks that Jesus and Paul weren’t clear or certain about their views on the Scriptures, sexual ethics, or hell and judgment, just to name a few issues. Do your own research. Read the best arguments from all sides of the debate. Feel free to openly disagree. Let’s actually put the different views next to each other on the table and see which ones are the strongest. Let’s see which ones are the best represented in historical and contemporary scholarship. But if, in the meantime, the claim that “I firmly believe that we shouldn’t put firm convictions on the table” seems odd to you… well… at the very least, please know that you’re not alone.
