It is no secret that our culture today has been/is undergoing a massive paradigm shift with regards to the way people come to know truth. The atmosphere of the intellectual landscape has changed. For many, confidence, certainty, and dogmatism have been replaced with doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. All truth claims are held in high suspicion. Those still working under the old paradigm of absolute truth and absolute knowledge are thought by this new generation of thinkers to be naive at best and power mongering manipulators at worst.

Within the philosophical and theological communities, this new generation goes by many names: Post-fundamentalism, Post-Christian, Post-Evangelical, Post-Liberal, “emerging”, and the most common postmodern. While these names may not be sufficient to completely convey the ethos of this generation, they all have one important element in common—they are all post something. They are all emerging out of something. The culture is moving beyond where it was before. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.

How do you know who to trust?

Before Google, before the internet, before twenty-four-hour world news, before community run encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, before Facebook, before blogs became the premier source for truth, before the introduction of our globalized culture where alternative truth claims are literally at ones fingertips, people could be much more confident that the truth claims to which they adhere were an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because we did not have so many alternatives to confuse the issues. The naivety that this intellectual isolation provided, while quite comforting, is no longer a luxury that we can afford to entertain and expect to have an audience in the real world with the Great Commission. Truth is no longer simply a matter of going to the local parish on the corner and inquiring of the pastor. It is much more complex and confusing. Today, people are looking for answers, and bewilderment is the most common result. Doubt, depression, and disillusionment are often the result as people pan-handle for truth. Thousands of alternatives present themselves at your front door at every turn. After a while you just don’t want to answer the door anymore. The question “What is truth?” or, better, “Where is truth?” is the great ambient question that saturates the thinking of our culture whether we know it or not.

People are suspicious

Suspicion. This is a good, rich, and sad word that is only needed because of humanity’s moral downfall. To be suspicious means that you are in a “state of uncertainty or doubt.” Or better, “Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like.” Synonyms for suspicion are doubt, mistrust, or misgiving. Our culture is in a perpetual state of uncertainty about truth; our culture is suspicious—suspicious of you and suspicious of me. Heck, I am even suspicious of you! Why? Because Christians claim to have the truth about the most important questions in life. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. We have presented ourselves at the front door, and our message of exclusivity is, more often than not, falling on deaf ears.

While the problem is no secret, the solution is harder to come by. It would be easy to say “sin” is the problem. While this would be the answer that fits within the Christian worldview, it is a bit simplistic. Yes, sin is the problem. Its my problem as a knower of truth and my problem as a seeker or truth. I can’t know perfectly and neither can you. I can’t seek perfectly and I often don’t where to go. Because of these epistemological (“how we know”) difficulties, the focal point for theology is no longer Bibliology as it once was, but prolegomena. Prolegomena is the theological discipline that focuses on issues that need to be covered before truth claims can be asserted and debated. Prolegomena deals with the “first things” of theology. Methodology, theological systems, epistemology, and sources for truth are all issues of prolegomena. Because the world does not work with the same assumptions that it used to, I believe we must create common ground before we can reach our culture. This common ground must first and foremost deal with the issue of suspicion. The distrust that people have for you when you approach their door with a Bible opened to your favorite verse is real and needs to be answered. Trust needs to be gained.

Not only this, but this disarming of suspicion must have a subjective component to it as well. You and I are not speaking from a megaphone from our isolated island of naivety (at least we shouldn’t be). We are affected by the change as well. I have seen just as much confusion, suspicion, doubt, and discouragement among believers in recent years as I have among unbelievers. People are leaving organized religion in droves, and the denominations are depleting in numbers. As I said before, I myself find it hard to know who to trust.

What I want to propose is a method of theological inquiry that goes a long way in disarming both the skeptic out there and the skeptic within. It is called “irenic theology” or the “irenic method” of doing theology. The word “irenic” is taken from the Greek irene which means “peace.” Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the truth by positioning itself as the only true option.

Requirements of the Irenic Method

Willingness to learn, adapt, and change: The Reformers brought theology out of the dogmatic slumber of the dark ages. They challenged the unfounded traditions and abuses of the past, giving the church a bright light of hope as the Gospel was rediscovered. They also sought to prevent the church from ever revisiting the difficulties proclaiming the principle of Semper Reformanda which means “always reforming.” The Reformers knew that truth must always be tested and ready to be reformed. This understanding presents our search for truth as a journey that will not end until Christ comes for the church (1 Cor. 13:12). We will always see in a mirror dimly. The greatest reform or each of us, in both mind and body, will come when Christ comes. Today, we must be willing continue to carry this banner and reform as well. The irenic method demands that we approach our study ready to alleviate ourselves of any sacred cows that might have crept in without warrant. We must be willing to reform our theology if the evidence makes such a demand. This is easier said than done, but it is necessary nonetheless.

Willingness to take a risk: When you present all views accurately, the best arguments from all positions are presented so that people have the chance to make up their own minds, knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of all relevant positions. In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe. There is risk involved in irenic theology, especially for teachers. Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fare well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion. People will find out the other options in a Googling generation. Once they do, you will have lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naive, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent. Irenic theology demands that the risk be taken.

A broad knowledge base: No longer can people study in isolation, seeking to confirm their prejudice with what they read or whom they listen to. We must be willing to challenge ourselves and expand our thinking. If you are a Calvinist (as am I), you must be able and willing to represent the Arminian position (or any alternatives) accurately. Irenic theology demands that you allow for no straw men arguments or any hint of belligerence. In other words, you should know enough to present their case so well and respectfully that if the strongest apologist for their position were to be in your audience, he or she would give you a thumbs up, affirming the accuracy of your information and appreciating your peaceful tone.

There is an old folk tale that has been spread more times than I can count about counterfeits currency. Some would say that just as those who investigate counterfeits only study real currency in order to identify counterfeits, so should Christians only study the truth in order to identify untruth. This is a very modernistic illustration which is not only untrue, but will hardly serve as a justified model for discovery in a suspicious world. The first fallacy is that the illustration is simply untrue. Counterfeit investigators do study every type of counterfeit that is known. Second, this illustration arrogantly assumes that they are already in possession of the truth against which to measure the false. It necessarily requires that you do not examine the options. Therefore, it seeks to keep you in isolation. This is fine and good if you actually do have the truth, but who is to say that you do? Here is the key: Any number of rival truth claims can use this illustration to keep their people in naive ignorance. Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religion can use this illustration to keep their own at bay. It will not deepen beliefs but it will confirm prejudice. For many who follow this methodology, they are in for a rude awakening. We must be willing to study broadly and consider deeply the alternatives if we expect to have and produce intellectual honesty. Without it, how do we expect to stand before God with integrity?

Benefits of Irenic Method

Your beliefs will be more real: No longer will you believe something simply out of a subjective emotional conviction that can be shared by all people of all world religions, but because of an honest wrestling with the issues. God gave us our minds and He expects us to use them. He has no favor for the naive (read the Proverbs). His desire is for us to see the truth and be convinced of it.

You will have degrees of conviction: Without an irenic method, all beliefs carry the same degree of conviction. They are black and white. You either believe them or you don’t. There is no in-between. While the irenic method will give you greater conviction on many things, it will also demand less assurance with other things. And this is par for the course of human inquiry and understanding. None of us can have perfect conviction to the degree God does.

In Christianity, there are many non-essential doctrines about which sincere believers disagree. Often, due to the strengths of the arguments for alternative positions, the evidence demands that we be very timid about setting them up as tests for orthodoxy or holding to some things too strongly. If God’s revelation is clear, then we speak with the same clarity. If God’s revelation is not so clear, we represent it as such. Being Christian does not mean that we know it all or have a secret decoder ring when it comes to difficult issues. We have to look to the evidence and take a stand, even if that stand says “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.”

You will have a hierarchy of beliefs: As Roger Olson put it in Mosaic of Christian Belief: “Beliefs matter, but not all beliefs matter equally.” The irenic method demands that we see that some beliefs are more important than others. In other words, all doctrines are not worth dying for on a hill. Once we begin to see this, we will have gained an audience because Christians will all be speaking the same language. While disagreements will definitely still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree. The list on Google for “What is a Christian” suddenly gets much, much smaller. The person and work of Christ is the center of our theology and must be spoken of by all Christians with unity and conviction.

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will people see us in the likeness of a used car salesman or a determined lawyer, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

Our world is confused. They feel betrayed and manipulated. There is information overload and people don’t know where to turn. But this does not mean that many are not seeking for answers. We have the only thing that matters: Jesus Christ. Though we believe that the power of the Spirit is the only reason people turn to Him, this does not mean we are for throw tact, understanding, and empathy out the door. God will use these things to bring people to him.

In conclusion: Don’t underestimate people’s ability to spot a fake. Ask yourself continually if you are a fake. Don’t be afraid to learn. Christ has not given us such a faith that demands blind adherence. Pursue truth will all your being. Trust that God is not afraid of questions and doubt. He is pretty big. I think He handles honest doubt better than naive commitment.Similar Posts:

• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief
• All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons

The other day I was listening to a radio program. The speaker is someone who is very popular in Evangelical apologetics. He is someone that I have learned a lot from and whom I respect a great deal. However, he propagated something that I think is, more often than not, a very poor apologetic response to questions for which the individual does not have answers. It goes like this:

Apologist teacher: “We need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.”

Student: “But I am scared. What if someone asks a question that I don’t have an answer for.”

Apologist teacher: “Don’t be scared. It is okay if you don’t know. Don’t feel bad about your lack of knowledge. You just need to remedy it. Tell them that it is a good question and that you will go find the answer and get back with them about it.”

However, I often find this sort of carte blanc response disturbing and quite demeaning.

I am not saying that it could not be a good answer in certain circumstances for certain questions. But when it comes to our defense of the faith we had better be more prepared and more reflective. What do I mean by this?

Think about it. Let’s put this in a particular situation. You are an enthusiastic Christian who believes deeply in the Gospel. You are talking to a co-worker about Christ one day. They begin to tell you about why they don’t believe in God. The crux of their issue is the problem of evil. “How could a good God allow evil?” That is their question. You respond, “I don’t know. Good question. I will research this some and get back to you next week.”

What you have just done here is legitimized your faith to this person. As well, you have diminished the seriousness of the question and the person asking it. To this person, your faith is carried even though you have not dealt with one of the most serious theological questions that anyone can ask. You have just told the person, “Hmmm…Good question. Never thought of that.” Once this person (who obviously does think deeply) recognizes that you have not personally wrestled with this issue, they might see your faith as shallow and fake. And you know what? They might be right. I am not saying that our faith is not true in such circumstances, only that it may be unreflective. 

Not only this, but you may be belittling the person by demeaning the question. How did you demean the question? By not engaging it, but simply saying “I will get the answer and come back.” Quick fix, eh? How do you know you will get the answer? Is it really that easy? Is it as simple as “getting the answer and coming back.” Here is the key point of what I am saying: You are saying to this person, “I know that this is the main reason why you reject God. You may think you are a smart chap, but you are not that smart since I can simply go get the answer and come back in no time!”

I am not saying that we have to have an answer for everything. After all, there will be a time in our Christian walk when we are first starting to deal with some of these difficult questions ourselves. Most pop apologetics today are concerned with good Evangelical cliché answers. It is not about engaging the issue. It is not about wrestling with problems. It is about “getting the answer and coming back.” Often there will be good answers. Other times there will be many legitimate options. Still, other times there will be no answers, just an understanding of the difficulty.

This is why Christian discipleship of the mind is so important. We need to show others that we are not disqualified due to intellectual shallowness. We need to have wrestled with the issue ourselves. We need to have been encouraged to do so by our mentors. We need to show others that we understand the problems not simply because we have read a question/answer book on the subject, but because we have been in the same place and asked the same questions. We have engaged and wrestled with the question personally. Therefore our answer comes from the depth of who we are, even if the answer is “I don’t know.”

Another example: Think about this. You are witnessing to someone and telling them about Scripture as God’s word. They begin to inquire about the contents of Scripture saying, “So many people have different books in their Bibles. How do you know that the books you use are the right ones?” You say, “Good question, I will get back to you on that.” Say what? You have not even wrestled with a foundational question such as this? How real can your faith actually be? That is what is going through their mind.

Or, how about this: They ask you how you know historically that Jesus rose from the grave and it is not just a Christian myth. You respond, “Good question. I am going to find out and get back to you on this.” You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave?? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave???? You, a Christian, are going to go (future tense) to find out why you believe the central element to the Christian faith is true? And you expect this person to follow you?

This comes in all areas of theology. As a Calvinist (one who believes in unconditional predestination) I am often asked many questions about why God did not choose everyone. I don’t have an answer for this. It disturbs me too. But this is not from lack of studying or reflection. I know all the options. I have spend many a night dealing with this with the Lord. However, I don’t have a good answer. But I do have an informed answer: “I don’t know.” Sometimes an informed I don’t know is better than an unreflective text book answer. Why? Because it legitimizes the question (and the one asking) and legitimizes your faith. You have shown that you are a real person, not a theological bot. Theological bots are simply concerned with the “right” answer to everything, not the struggle and the depth that accompanies true belief.

We are not theological bots. God wants us to love him with all our understanding. But our discipleship process must engage issues truly. We need to avoid surface level shallow defenses of our faith. They can do more harm than good. And, remember, on some issues, informed agnosticism is the best and most effective position to have.

If you are one who has done this often, if you are one who has yet to wrestle with your faith, take heart. I am not saying you have to be perfect. I am not saying that you have ruined your witness and someone is going to be burning in hell due to your negligence. If so, count me guilty as well. These things are tough. But you know what? God works in and with us even though we stumble, fall, and look, from the outsiders perspective, illegitimate. That is what grace is all about. When he is ready to change a heart, it will happen. If we fumble the ball, he does not—ever! However, we do need to be as diligent as possible, having allowed ourselves to personally wrestle with hard questions.Similar Posts:

• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Welcome to the world of agnostics
• “What if I Missed Something?”
• All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons
• Orthodoxy: Should We Define Who is “In” and Who is “Out”

I know, I know.  I don’t ever write this . . . this . . . well, this polemical. It seems as if I am discrediting Roman Catholic scholarship with a heavy hand by an ad hom fiat. Please know this is not what I mean to do. There are going to be plenty of people thrown under the bus with this one. In fact, let me start by saying there are many Roman Catholics whom I deeply respect. I am not anti-Catholic. As well, there are many Roman Catholics whom I believe qualify as scholars. However, once they become a scholar (and I am talking about theology here), as I will explain, they have to depart to some degree from Rome. I am not saying that they actually depart from their core Catholic beliefs. I am simply saying that they must suspend their commitment to Rome in order to meet what I believe to be an essential characteristic of scholarship.

Most of you would not think of yourself as scholars. I understand that. I don’t think of myself as such either. However, I would assume that you attempt to be good students. Namely, you attempt to be students of truth.

Let me back up a bit.

Rene Descartes and Doubt

Rene Descartes is often thought of as the father of modernity. He gets a bad rap these days, especially by our postmodern and emerging friends. I think some of the bad rap is justified, particularly his quest for indubitability (How’s that for a word? Don’t try to say it out loud at home). Indubitability means absolute and perfect certainty. Rene Descartes (and many of his modernistic buddies) wanted their beliefs to be beyond the ability to be wrong. Like 1 plus 1 equals 2, Descartes wanted all matters of faith to share such comforting certainty (indubitably). I can’t get into all the fallacies here, but let’s just say that this quest was not only impossible, but unnecessary. Our beliefs do not have to be infallible before we are justified in possessing them. However, Descartes’ methodology had many redeeming elements that provide benchmarks of inquiry, learning, and knowledge. The first and most important thing Descartes taught was that we are to doubt. Doubt everything!

Doubt gets a hard rap in religious circles. In fact, we are often told that the opposite of faith is doubt. For many, doubt is only what unbelievers do. It is true that doubt can be a bad thing, but it largely depends on the context and how you understand it. Doubt can be, and very often is, healthy. In fact, I argue that doubt is a necessary first step to true conviction, understanding, and real faith. Let me explain.

The Essence of Scholarship

In order to learn, one must be willing to change. I don’t mean that they must be willing to merely go from the lesser to the greater, but also from the greater to the lesser, or even from the greater to the none. If we are to be true learners, we must be able to suspend our convictions to some degree. Of course, all knowledge requires some basic foundational assumptions, as Descartes began to articulate, but all knowledge must be challenged in order to graduate to true faith. We must be willing to set aside our preconceptions, passions, and emotional attachments in order to enter a learning environment. We must be willing to doubt everything, even our doubts.

Scholarship is based on the assumption that the best, most accurate, and trustworthy information is being sought. Scholarship is not based on the assumption that we are attempting to prove what we already know or believe. I learned a dictum early in my seminary career from my friend and co-blogger, Dan Wallace: “We are in pursuit of the truth, not prejudice.” In other words, we must do our best to approach our studies with the intent to follow the evidence no matter where it leads. This is a hard thing to do, as we all have our prejudices. We all have a “home team” for which we root. This is why being true students is very hard. We don’t like to be challenged, only confirmed. However, if we are to be true students – true scholars – we must be willing to suspend, to the best of our ability, our prejudices.

A Word About Apologetics

I love apologetics, don’t get me wrong. But what I am about to say will offend many apologists out there. Nine times out of ten, I don’t think apologists make good scholars. “Apologetics” is defined most broadly in Christian circles as defending the faith. This means when there is something – an idea, event, book, or person – presenting challenges to the faith, the apologist will come to the rescue.

While there are Christian apologists out there, there are also apologists for particular areas. For example, there are apologists for young earth creationism, evolutionary theism, inerrancy, premillenialism, and counter-cults. There are also apologists for the individual traditions in the Christian faith, such as Protestant apologists and Roman Catholic apologists. Of course, apologetics is not limited to the Christian faith, as there are apologists for atheism, Mormonism, and Islam.

While I think apologetics is a necessary and much-needed discipline, and while I believe there are some very good and honest apologists out there (such as my friends Rob Bowman, Paul Copan, and Mike Licona, to name a few), most of the time the discipline falls into the trap of being a perpetual exercise in defending presuppositions.  Anytime there is a preset conclusion to which your data and interpretation of the data must point, apologetics turns bad. It is no longer a scholarly pursuit, since it has a predetermined outcome.

In our studies, we must be free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change. As hard as it is, we must allow ourselves this liberty. If we come to a subject with what we believe to be infallible or indubitable certainty, all of the data, no matter what it says, will be bent, shaped, and manipulated to fit this preset conclusion. Even our most vital and basic beliefs must be open to question. Why? We are fallible. Our ideas could be wrong. Our prejudices can be ill-founded. In short, we must question ourselves because we are not God.

What God Thinks of Doubt

When it comes to our faith in God, this is not less important, but more important. In order for our faith to be strong, our ability to test our faith must be valid. Paul admonishes the Corinthians to test the the sincerity of their faith (2 Cor 13:5). Without doubt, our faith can never really be tested. For to even take a test there must be some suspension of our presumption of perfection. Paul tells the Thessalonians to test or examine all things carefully, and only hold fast to that which is worthy of our faith (1 Thess 5:21). This is the basic idea of discernment, which requires a critical methodology. The Psalmist asks the Lord to test his mind and his heart (Psalm 26:2). God tests us all the time. The purpose of his testing is not to leave us in doubt, but that our doubt would progressively turn to assurance. In order for conviction to arise in our beliefs, tests must be conducted.

In the end, when we test our faith, when we doubt, when we discern, when we critically examine our most fundamental beliefs (remember, Paul says test all things) under the microscope and they survive, they are much stronger than they were before the test. Doubt is a necessary precondition to faith. Discernment is a necessary precondition to following God.

I don’t think Christians should have any fear in testing their faith. We should not fear the doubt that leads to assurance of truth. Not only does God not mind our aspirations to such scholarship, he beckons us to such.

Why “Roman Catholic scholarship” is an oxymoron

What does this have to do with Roman Catholicism? Well, as you can see, this post is about much more than just the viability of Roman Catholic scholarship. While what I have described above is very difficult for anyone with deep commitments, it is most difficult, in Christianity, for those who exist under authoritative human leadership. Christian traditions do not get much more authoritative than Roman Catholicism. To be fair, there are unspoken authoritative structures in many Christian traditions that, while not claiming infallibility, do share the same fundamental guidelines. Outside the Christian faith, it is not much different. I find atheists have the least ability to question their atheism, but this has more to do with personal emotional fundamentalistic commitments than any human authority. This is why atheism boasts of being the most objective, but this boast is, most of the time, very empty.

Roman Catholicism, however, exists under a official umbrella of authoritative – indeed infallible - dogmatic assertions. Again, while no one is completely objective in their studies, Roman Catholics, when it comes to their defined dogma, cannot really study objectively.  Why? Because their conclusions are already laid out. For example, if a Roman Catholic is interpreting the Scriptures, he must come to conclusions that are in line with what Rome has already said about the subject. He doesn’t have the freedom to disagree. He doesn’t have the freedom to doubt, if the doubt implies an actual possibility that Rome is wrong.

This is why all true Roman Catholics “scholars” are necessarily apologists who follow the prejudice of Rome, not the the data. Were they to doubt and come to conflicting opinions on something the Church has dogmatized, they are no longer, by definition, Roman Catholic.

In truth, most Roman Catholics don’t function in this way. In fact, the Roman Catholics whose scholarship I trust the most are a bit rebellious. They are not truly Roman Catholic. Apologists on the inside of Rome would call them “cafeteria Catholics,” since they pick and choose which beliefs they like best.

This is not to say that the trust they put in Rome is ill-founded. I don’t happen to think the magisterial authority of Rome is worthy of such trust, but that is not the subject of this post. Another time, maybe. This simply means that when it comes to biblical and theological studies, the designation “Roman Catholic scholar” is an oxymoron. Their conclusions, no matter how unlikely, must sing in harmony with Rome. However, it must be said, that if they are right and the Magisterial authority is infallible (which is the key meta-issue before all others between Protestants and Roman Catholics), then their methodology is secure to the degree that they can demonstrate this claim.

While Protestantism is certainly not perfect, there is freedom for true biblical and theological scholarship to exist. Protestants don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but can instead be investigators of truth. We can be critical scholars. Whether or not we always practice this is a different matter, but the issue is one of allowance. Yes, the greater the allowance, the more the diversity. But the greater the allowance for diversity, the greater the possibility of true conviction to exist. Evangelicals can let the evidence take them wherever it leads, not simply to a predetermined destination. Therefore, I believe Protestant Evangelicals can practice true scholarship to a degree that other traditions, especially Roman Catholicism, cannot.

Finding Personal Conviction Through Embracing Doubt

However, this does get very personal. In the end, Christians, no matter what their tradition, need to increase their faith. This does not mean holding our hands against our ears, covering our eyes, and blindly following a predetermined route. Our conviction must be personal. It cannot be blindly outsourced. This was one of the many things that the Reformation brought back into focus: true conviction.

Martin Luther stood before a council ready to take on the prejudices of his day. Not without fear but full of courage, Luther, at the Council of Worms (in Wittenberg, Germany, 1517), gave his famous speech:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony from scripture or by evident reason—for I confide neither in the Pope nor in a Council alone, since it is certain they have often erred and contradicted themselves—I am held fast by the scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is held captive by God’s Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing it is not safe or right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”

What was he doing? Doubting. Learning. Growing. Becoming more convicted. Adducing for himself. Did he believe that he could have been wrong about his previous commitments concerning the Catholic church? Yes. This is what set him on the reformation path. Did this produce fear? Affectung. This is the type of fear he describes. It is a German word that cannot easily be translated into English. It carries all the connotations of fear, with a much more paralyzing result. In short, Luther was doubting and scared. But he knew that this was the cost of true conviction and scholarship.

Sadly, many of us (Roman Catholic or otherwise) do not often follow this legacy.  While it is easy to get caught up in defending our prejudice, let us take up this mantle of learning and be ready, for the sake of our Lord, to change when necessary. We recognize that the possibility of true conviction necessitates the possibility of error, but is this too great a price to pay? Embrace your doubts. Doubt your doubts. Test all things. Follow the evidence, not your presuppositions.Similar Posts:

• Why I Hate Roman Catholicism, Part 2
• First Things Blogcast #4: Catholics vs. Evangelicals on Justification
• The Catholic Church is a Cult
• Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation
• Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?

PLEASE NOTE: this is in no way attempting to be prophetic.

click on graphic to enlarge

My primary goal here is to show my developing perspective on the history of the church. Protestants believe in “development.” Unlike the Eastern Orthodox, we are not trying to get back to the beliefs and the practices of the first few hundred years of the church. While we, as the graph shows, believe that there are wonderful “states of being” in every life-stage, our desire is to learn from the past and mature.

DNA: DNA is the basic building blocks of life. Everything you are has been encoded on your unique DNA from your conception. In the church, the DNA never changes. Further life-stages are merely a working out, maturation, and development of this DNA. When God’s special revelation was finalized at the completion of the canon of Scripture, the DNA code was manifest and ready for development. While the church goes through maturation, the basic doctrinal components will always be recognizable and reflective of its DNA. The DNA determines the orthodoxy and catholicity (universality) of the church.

Infancy: Like when a child is born and just beginning to discover and experience the world through sense perception, love, and intimacy, the earliest church, after the death of the Apostles, is birthed into a time of self-realization. On the run from persecution and attempting to find its place in a very diverse world, the church experiences a time of innocence. Words are just being formed. Though the concepts are present, the church lacks the sophistication to articulate itself well. Doctrines such as the Trinity and Atonement are present in seed form, but have yet to find a definite expression.

Adolescence: Like a child who is now out in the real world, expression and discovery are greatly realized. The church, being free to worship due to the civil toleration of its faith, begins to mingle with others, both believers and unbelievers. The purity of the fellowship experienced previously begins to give way to differences and corruptions in the real world. This forces the church to more precisely discover and define itself for the purpose of self-preservation. The great creeds and councils of the church are realized during this time.

Teens: Moving out of adolescence, people enter into the time of life where they are increasing in knowledge, but their lack of wisdom, which can only be gained through experience and critical thinking, creates attitudes and dispositions that can be very immature. Knowing the basics of life and how to express them, we turn into bigger-than-life know-it-alls. The church seems to have gone through its teen years during the “Dark” or Middle Ages. If “Dark Ages” can be used of teens, it seems to fit well with the church. The church over-defines itself and begins to take on an air of arrogance leading to the need for dramatic change. While the DNA is still present, it is during this time that we experience physical, mental, and emotion distortions more than any other.

Twenties: During our twenties, a transformation and maturation takes place that saves us from our rebellious teen years. We often think of our twenties are the “red-faced” era where we are redeeming, restoring, and reforming our lives (which almost ended during the teens!). Experience and mature thinking produce stability and hope. Our parents become “pretty smart people” for the first time. In the maturation of the church, we look to the time of the Reformation for such redeeming stability. The Reformation presented the church with a time of doctrinal reflection, stabilization, and maturation.

Thirties and Forties: During this time, we have a good ten to twenty years of “the real world” behind us. Reflection on ideals, hopes, and dreams presents us with a time of adjustment. Often, unmet expectations, difficulties of marriage, paying bills, and children of our own bring us to the brink of disaster. We call this a “mid-life crisis”. The fork in the road is definite. We have been climbing ropes for a long time. We now either decide to find new ropes or hold on to a certain few more tightly. This seems to where the church is at now. Much doubt, depression, and disillusionment. Many adjustments are being made. Some are abandoning traditional Christianity alltogether, rejecting those things that have been a part of the DNA for tw0 thousand years. Others are losing their grips on the weaker ropes and tightening their grips on the stronger. Either way, we seem to be at a fork in the road.

Fifties and beyond: Though I am not there, I see the fifties and beyond (so long as people make it this far with their sanity in tact!) as a great time of maturity. Here, decisions have been made and values established through both knowledge and experience. We call this “wisdom.” The church, as a whole (in my opinion) has not made it here yet. The “mid-life crisis” that we are in will, hopefully, move us in this direction soon. I pray that we hold on to the right ropes (though I know we will—Matt. 16:18).

Again, please understand, this is not prophetic or predictive in any way. Also understand that this concerns the church as a whole, not necessarily every individual in the church. I could expand on this quite a bit more, but then I would be forcing things too much into these categories (the analogy can only go so far). That is not what I am trying to do. I am merely presenting this as a “philosophy of Church history” that can help people understand the maturation process of the church while accounting for and appreciating the change and difficulties that arise along the way.

May God be glorified through the maturing of the church and may the Holy Spirit give us wisdom to continue to grow as the Body of Christ.Similar Posts:

• “How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief” or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic
• Not “Something on a Stick”
• Doing Philosophy Under the Cross
• The Anatomy of Belief (3): Belief Without Conviction
• Orthodoxy, Theological Maturity, and the Development of Doctrine: From Theological DNA to Maturity

How should Christians engage a post-Christian, post-evangelical world, suspicious generation of people? How do we engage postmoderns?

Follow me here through this “Leading a horse to water” illustration. Here are the objects:

Horse=postmodern
Water=the Gospel
Rope=method of delivery

Question: How do we lead a postmodern horse to water?

Option 1: Deny the horse is really postmodern. No one can be a consistent postmodern. We simply need to convince them of the untenability of their professing worldview and show them how they don’t hold to it in reality.

Option 2: Convert the horse from being postmodern. Create common ground in epistemology (the way we come to know truth), then they will be able to drink the water.

Option 3: Change the rope. Christians need to change the communication method and style for a postmodern audience, being sensitive to the ethos of our culture.

Option 4: Change the water. The water we are calling “Gospel” today may not represent the true Gospel due to traditional folk theology and misinformation. Therefore, the water needs to be “purified.”

Option 1: Deny the horse is really postmodern.

No one can be a consistent postmodern. We simply need to convince them of the untenability of their professing worldview and show them how they don’t hold to it in reality.

This option is held by many in the Reformed tradition, especially of those who hold to a presuppositional apologetic. Presuppositional apologetics seek to make an offensive defense of the faith by bringing to people’s understanding that God is the presupposition behind all truth and knowledge. Without God, there is no such thing as an argument or a rational thought. He is required before any claim to truth can be made or any view can be held with conviction. There is a lot more to it than this, but hopefully this explanation will suffice for now. The most popular adherent to such an approach, especially when it comes to the issue of relativism, was Francis Schaeffer.

With regards to the issues surrounding Postmodernism, the one who takes this approach says that we yield too much ground when we concede that the “relativist” or “hard skeptic” is really such since in order to be such they have God as the very basis for their ability to doubt or deny the truth. Their logical reasoning shows that they already believe in the God of the Bible who is the presupposition behind all logical reasoning. As the old saying goes, “chaos cancels reason.” If there are reasons for relativism, this cancels relativism.

Those who opt for option one would not necessarily deny the other options a place, but they would say that we have to present the case as it stands, and as it stands, no one is really postmodern.

Evaluation

I don’t hold to this view much, although I do think it has its place. Yet I think the issues run much deeper than confining postmodernism to relativism. In fact, I think the ethos of the culture is not relativistic, but made up of varying degrees of skepticism and doubt. See my paper here which distinguishes between hard and soft postmodernism. I believe that our culture today is legitimately confused about truth, not necessarily denying its existence altogether.

Option 2: Convert the horse from being postmodern.

Create common ground in epistemology (the way we come to know truth), then they will be able to drink the water.

This option is very much like the first, but does have some major philosophical differences in approach. Like the first, this approach starts with the assumption that postmodernism is essentially evil and antagonistic to the Christian faith, associating it completely with its tendency toward hard relativism (the belief that all truth is relative). But there is a distinction. While the first option did not accept the notion that a person could actually be relativistic in their epistemology, this option does.

According to advocates of this approach, people hold to contradictory systems of truth all the time. Polytheism, for example, is self-contradictory since it does not make room for a first-cause or a necessary being. Yet many people throughout time have adhered to a polytheistic worldview. The Christians job, according to this option, is to create a common intellectual ground from which evangelism can take place. Many times this will involve attempting to convince someone of the existence of a perfect, personal, all-powerful, necessary being from whom all things have their being. Once this is accomplished, then there can be a conversation where a transcendent reality, whom we call God, is creating a meta-narrative to which all truth must correspond. This God is the God of the Bible. Typical biblical apologetics can be used once the common ground has been created.

Some adherents of this view might be R.C. Sproul or Norm Geisler. While option one was identified with presuppositional or reformed apologetics, this option is taken by those who follow a more classical apologetics approach popularized by Thomas Aquinas.

Evaluation

I believe that this approach, like the last has its merits. I think it recognizes that people’s thinking can become corrupt due to sin and bad influences within the culture. But I must contend with its understanding of the postmodern ethos. I think that it is too simplistic to identify the problem and solution upon the assumption of hard relativism. I don’t think that the average person is truly a hard relativist either in confession or practice. I think better designations are skeptical and suspicious. They do not trust other people’s claims to knowledge and therefore are normally not open to listening to their arguments. At the same time, I do believe that there is going to be a necessary time and place for this type of argumentation, but only once we have won their trust. And in a world where even self-trust is difficult to find, this is not going to be easy.

Option 3: Change the rope.

Christians need to change the communication method and style for a postmodern audience, being sensitive to the ethos of our culture.

To change the rope means that we evaluate our presentation method and change where necessary. This might be considered the choice of many within the emerging church (although number 4 will also play into this as well). It is also the method of many “seeker” churches.

When changing the rope, there are no sacred cows. As the culture changes, so must our methodology in presenting the Gospel and doing church. This might take many forms. It could be as simple as changing the worship style from traditional music to contemporary or it can be as radical as sculpting the Gospel out of clay instead of words. Whatever communicates best to our culture should be used as a medium for the Gospel. Whatever the culture shuns or distrusts as far as communication is concerned should not be used. If we live in a drama-driven culture that seeks to experience life through fictional movies, then the Christian community should be making movies that communicate truth. If we live in a culture that has acquired a disdain and distrust for traditional church gatherings, then lets change them. In other words, there is nothing sacred in the way we do things, only in what we do.

Those who adhere to this option would see a distinction between form and function. Function represents the basic principles (i.e. the water), the form is the way the function is made manifest (i.e. the rope). The form is always in need of change, even if the fundamentalists of each generation cry wolf-they always have and always will.

As well, changing the rope can be seen as following the pattern set by God. God did not write in a “God-type” literature, but condescended to the culture in which He was communicating. He used Psalms where Psalms were common, He used Near-Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties when in the Near-East, and used parables for relevance to those who would understand them. Therefore, according to this position, God changed the rope, so should we.

Evaluation:

Like the previous, I see much to commend with this option. We all have the tendency to see the rope as sacred as the water due to longevity of use. “I use this rope because mom used this rope, and her mom used this rope, and her mom used this rope. If it is good enough for them . . .” you know the rest. The rope is not sacred, yet we have the tendency to make it such. I agree very much with this view since it sees a great need to evaluate the culture and make change based upon the ethos of the generation. I do believe that God condescended His message to make it understandable and relevant. Heck, even language itself is a condescension in many ways. To the Hebrews, He spoke Hebrew. To those in the first century, He spoke in Greek. Why? Because that is the only way they could understand. He changed the rope. So should we.

Option 4: Change the water.

The water we are calling “Gospel” today may not represent the true Gospel due to traditional folk theology and misinformation. Therefore, the water needs to be “purified.”

I can hear the reaction. “Change the Gospel? This cannot be. This is the last thing that I would choose. The Gospel must remain pure and unadulterated.” I know that it is very easy to have an elbow-jerk reaction to this, proverbially slapping it in the face, but, like the others, let us consider it in the way that those who opt for it would.

There are many in the church who would say that the “Gospel” that we call the “Gospel” is not really the Gospel at all. In other words, the water is not pure. According to this group, the culture is reacting strongly against church, Christians, and religiosity in general. They are not only sick of the self-righteousness that is so easy to find, but against the dogmatism of the various groups represented. This dogmatism has the “I’m right, your wrong; Your going to hell, I’m not” feel about it. They like Jesus, but not the Church. What does that mean? Well according to those who hold to this option, it means that the church does not have Jesus, at least the real, essential Jesus. In other words, if Jesus is the subject of the Gospel, and the church does not have Jesus, then the water as it is now is nothing but a poisoned, bitter, and false representation of the Gospel. Therefore, the church needs to re-evaluate the water. The church needs to put the water to the test and purify the impurities.

There are two groups that represent this option:

1. Radical water changers: Those who would say that the historic Christian faith is wrong in many ways.
2. Moderate water changers: Those who say that the contemporary Christian faith is wrong in many ways.

How can we purify the Gospel? By removing unnecessary and bad doctrine that has misrepresented the truth and given the church a bad name. But the question becomes: What are these impurities?

The radical water changers would have no ties to tradition at all. They would entertain the thought that many beliefs that have defined the historic Christian faith are wrong. Included in these beliefs could be the doctrine of Hell (is it really eternal? Is it really real? Let’s not speak about it), the doctrine of God (is God really eternal? if so, how can He relate?), the exclusivity of Christ (is Christ really the only way?), the atonement (would God really enact “cosmic child abuse” to secure redemption?), the doctrine of sin (are we really condemned for the sin of another?), and the like. The water is purified to the point where all that secure is the fact that God loves all people and will eventually save all somehow (universalism). These can be found in the liberal church and many of the more radical representatives in the emerging church.

The moderate water changers, on the other hand, would say that the church must always be evaluating the water to make sure that no impurity has crept in unaware. Sometimes these impurities come as a result of reaction against the culture or other false teachings. They are added to the water during the battle, but never taken out – even when the battle is over. This group would look to historic Christianity for the basic essential elements of the Gospel, often looking to the early creeds and confessions. Additives that they would consider unworthy of the water would be issues of practice that have become normalized to such a degree that you cannot distinguish them from the Gospel. It may be how we do church (“big church,” “little church”), how we present the Gospel (the “sinners prayer,” walking the aisle, the Four Spiritual Laws), how we relate to the culture (“if the culture does it, Christians should not” mentality), and legalistic practices (Christians should not drink, gamble, dance, smoke, or go to the movies), political additives (Christians must vote Republican), and the like. According to this group, these practices have been traditionalized within the church to such a degree that they are now part of the water. As well, according to this group, non-essential doctrinal additives are present in the water. Some Christians have elevated non-essential beliefs to that of essentiality (political affiliations, views of the end-times, views on election, views on the inerrancy of Scripture). Therefore, the church needs to purify the water as it has become corrupt, getting the water back to the basic essentials. This option is held by many evangelicals and has much representation in the moderate emerging church.

Evaluation:

I don’t believe that the radical water changers are on safe ground. How can one depart from two-thousand years of essential Christian belief and still call themselves Christian? Is God absent from history? Is He a cheerleader on the sidelines or is He in the game? You cannot justify a radical change in basic Christian doctrine. You may not like it or agree with the way God did things, but if the Church has held strong to these basic essentials, we must respect God’s work through the giants of the past. When they speak in unity across time, you had better humble yourself and listen. This amounts to diluting the water according to the feelings and opinion of a contemporary audience. This will not do.

The moderate water changer option, on the other hand, has much to commend. They don’t seek to dilute the water, but to remove the additives. We are always in need of re-evaluation and reform. I believe that the Reformers were moderate water changers with regards to the culture and church at the time of the Reformation. Interestingly, the institutionalized church of the day believed that they were radical water changers. I believe that the church does need to inspect the water to make sure that there are no impurities present. I do believe that the Gospel can become identified by non-essential methodology and folk lore. Indeed, this makes the water not only hard to drink, but it can become completely destructive to the representation of Christ. Christ, in this sense, can be separated from the Gospel and the church. We need to make sure this does not happen.

In short, the water needs to be mere Christianity. Once it is, then it cannot be changed.

To bring this to a conclusion, I believe that all the options have their place when rightly understood. How do we engage postmodernism? I believe that we meet people where they are and bring them the essential Christ. The options will be relative to the situation. Therefore, there is no one option that is always right or wrong. (Boy, that sounds postmodern!)Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism: 4 Views
• Engaging Postmodernism (3): Changing the Horse
• Engaging Postmodernism (4): Changing the Rope
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern

In some sense, this is a charter post for Parchment and Pen as it expresses so much of what we are about. Have a great Fourth of July weekend.

Googling for truth can be a dangerous task. Who knows what one will find? How do you know who to trust? Before Google, before the Internet, before twenty-four-hour world news, before the introduction of our globalized culture where alternative truth claims are literally at ones fingertips, people could be much more confident that the truth claims to which they adhere were an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because we did not have any other alternatives to confuse the issues. The naiveté that this intellectual isolation provided, while quite comforting, is no longer a luxury that we can afford to entertain and expect to have an audience in the real world. Truth is no longer simply a matter of going to the local parish on the corner and inquiring of the pastor. It is much more complex and confusing. Today, people are Googling for truth, looking for answers, and bewilderment is the most common result. Thousands of alternatives present themselves at your front door at every turn. After a while you just don’t want to answer the door anymore. Is there a method of discovery that produces hope and assurance, without having to retreat back to naive isolationism of the past? 

It is no secret that our culture today is undergoing a massive paradigm shift with regards to the way people come to know truth. The atmosphere of the intellectual landscape has changed. Confidence, certainty, and dogmatism have been replaced with doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. Truth claims are held in high suspicion. Those still working under the old paradigm of truth are thought by this new generation of thinkers to be naive at best and power mongering manipulators at worst. Within the philosophical and theological communities, this new generation goes by many names: Post-fundamentalism, Post-Christian, Post-Liberal, and the most common Post-modernism. While these names may not be sufficient to completely convey the ethos of this generation, they all have one important element in common—they are all “post” something. The culture is moving beyond where it was before.

Suspicion. This is a good, rich, and sad word that is only needed because of humanity’s moral downfall. To be suspicious means that you are in a “state of uncertainty or doubt.” Or better, “Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like.” Synonyms for suspicion are doubt, mistrust, or misgiving. Our culture is in a perpetual state of uncertainty about truth; our culture is suspicious—suspicious of you and suspicious of me. Why? Because Christians claim to have the truth about the most important questions in life. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. We have presented ourselves at the front door, and our message of exclusivity is falling on deaf ears.

While the problem is no secret, the solution is harder to come by. Because of these epistemological difficulties, the focal point for theology is no longer Bibliology as it once was, but Prolegomena. Prolegomena is the theological discipline that focuses on issues that need to be covered before truth claims can be asserted and debated. Prolegomena deals with the “first things” of theology. Methodology, theological systems, epistemology, and sources for truth are all issues of Prolegomena. Because the world does not work with the same assumptions that it used to, we must create common ground before we can reach our culture. This common ground must first and foremost deal with the issue of suspicion. The distrust that people have for you when you approach their door with a Bible opened to your favorite verse is real.

Not only this, but this disarming must have a subjective component to it as well. You and I are not speaking from a megaphone from our isolated island of naivety (at least we shouldn’t be). We are affected by the change as well. I have seen much confusion and suspicion among believers in recent years. People are leaving organized religion in droves, and the denominations are depleting in numbers. I, myself, find it hard to know who to trust.

What I want to propose in this short essay is a method of theological inquiry that should go a long way in disarming both the skeptic out there and the skeptic within. It is called “irenic theology” or the “irenic method” of doing theology. The word “irenic” is taken from the Greek irene which means “peace.” Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the “truth” by positioning itself as the only true option.

Requirements of the Irenic Method

Willingness to learn, adapt, and change: The Reformers brought theology out of the dogmatic slumber of the dark ages. They challenged the unfounded traditions and abuses of the past, giving the church a bright light of hope as the Gospel was rediscovered. They also sought to prevent the church from ever revisiting the difficulties proclaiming the principle of Semper Reformanda which means “always reforming.” The Reformers knew that truth must always be tested and ready to be reformed. This understanding presents our search for truth as a journey that will not end until Christ comes for the church (1 Cor. 13:12). We must be willing to reform as well. The irenic method demands that we approach our study ready to alleviate ourselves of any sacred cows that might have crept in without warrant. We must be willing to reform our theology if the evidence makes such a demand. This is easier said than done, but it is necessary nonetheless.

Willingness to take a risk: When you present all views accurately, the best arguments from all positions are presented so that people have the chance to make up their own minds, knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of all relevant positions. In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe. There is risk involved in irenic theology, especially for teachers. Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fair well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion. People will find out the other options in a Googling generation. Once they do, you will have lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naïve, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent. Irenic theology demands that the risk be taken.

A broad knowledge base: No longer can people study in isolation, seeking to confirm their prejudice with what they read or whom they listen to. We must be willing to challenge ourselves and expand our thinking. If you, as a Protestant are going to present the Roman Catholic view on Transubstantiation, irenic theology demands that you allow for no straw men arguments. In other words, you should know enough to present their case so well that if the strongest apologist for their position were to be in your audience, he or she would give you a thumbs up, affirming the accuracy of your information and appreciating your peaceful tone. There is an old folk tale that has been spread more times than I can count about counterfeits currency. Some would say that just as those who investigate counterfeits only study real currency in order to identify counterfeits, so should Christians only study the truth in order to identify untruth. This is a very modernistic illustration which is not only untrue, but will hardly serve as a justified model for discovery in a postmodern world. The first fallacy is that the illustration is simply untrue. Counterfeit investigators do study every type of counterfeit that is known. Second, this illustration arrogantly assumes that they are already in possession of the truth against which to measure the false. It necessarily requires that you do not examine the options. Therefore, it seeks to keep you in isolation. This is fine and good if you actually do have the truth, but who is to say that you do? Any number of rival truth claims can use this illustration to keep there people in naive ignorance. For many who follow this methodology, they are in for a rude awakening. We must be willing to study broadly and consider deeply the alternatives if we expect to have and produce intellectual honesty. Without it, how do we expect to stand before God with integrity?

Benefits of Irenic Method

Your beliefs will be more real: No longer will you believe something simply out of a subjective emotional conviction that can be shared by all people of all world religions, but because of an honest wrestling with the issues. God gave us our minds and He expects us to use them. He has no favor for the naive (read the Proverbs). His desire is for us to see the truth and be convinced of it. 

You will have degrees of conviction: Without an irenic method, all beliefs carry the same degree of conviction. They are black and white. You either believe them or you don’t. There is no in-between. While the irenic method will give you greater conviction on many things, it will also demand less assurance with other things. You will see that often, because of the strengths of the arguments for alternative truth claims (such as in eschatology), the evidence demands that we be very timid about setting them up as tests for orthodoxy or holding to some things too strongly. If God’s revelation is clear, then we speak with the same clarity. If God’s revelation is not so clear, we represent it as such. Being Christian does not mean that we know it all or have a secret decoder ring when it comes to difficult issues. We have to look to the evidence and take a stand, even if that stand says “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.”

You will have a hierarchy of beliefs: As Roger Olson puts it, “Beliefs matter, but not all beliefs matter equally.”[1] The irenic method demands that we see that some beliefs are more important than others. In other words, all doctrines are not worth dying for on a hill. Once we begin to see this, we will have gained an audience because Christians will all be speaking the same language. While disagreements may still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree. The list on Google suddenly gets much smaller. The person and work of Christ is the center of our theology and must be spoken of by all Christians with unity and conviction.   

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will you or others see our faith and other Christians in the likeness of a used car salesman, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

Our world is confused. They feel betrayed and manipulated, but this does not mean that they are not seeking for answers. Don’t underestimate people’s ability to spot a fake. Ask yourself continually if you are a fake. Don’t be afraid to learn. Christ has not given us such a faith that demands blind adherence. Pursue truth will all your being. Trust that God is not afraid of questions and doubt. He is pretty big. I think He can handle honest doubt better than naïve commitment. Pursue theology irenically.

• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• Googling for Truth: The Great Commission and Information Overload
• Engaging Postmodernism (4): Changing the Rope
• All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons

This is a quote that I heard recently. I think that it is a rather tongue-in-cheek way of expressing our (post)modern culture’s current attitude with respect to the authority of science. During the modern period, science was king. The scientific revolution produced hopes of a Utopian society where virtually all problems would be solved due to human innovation, evolution, and advancement. But during the postmodern period, science has been humbled due to a realization that the process was not as clean as we thought. Human contamination, insufficient data, faulty presuppositions, and religiously and politically motivated studies have tainted our hopes that science is truly king.

Euclid said, “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Such is true, but how do we know that we have properly interpreted the “mathematical thoughts of God”? I believe in the authority of nature and many of our (scientific) conclusions about such. Every Christian should. I have written about this in times past. Romans 1 says that creation itself leaves people without an epistemic excuse about God’s reality. This, among many other things, provides a firm biblical foundation for cosmology, biology, physics, and rationality in the Christian life. In this sense, the study of nature is mandated for the Christian.

However, we need to be timid about our conclusions that come from science, knowing the ways that it, like the Bible, can be manipulated. More important for what I am talking about now, we need to realize how dynamic the conclusions of science can be.

I was a fitness trainer through the nineties as well as working in the fields of sports medicine. I was very good at what I did and understood the issues (at least I thought). I focused on weight loss physiology. I wanted to provide people with the best—the most scientifically accurate—routine for weight loss. When it came to losing weight though, I would tell people to engage in a steady-state cardio routine. This is one in which you would keep your heart rate up consistently and moderately for above thirty-minutes. Then about fifteen minutes of resistance training. Without getting into all the details of why, suffice it to say that this was the most accepted scientific method for such goals. When it came to nutrition, I was not faddish at all. I repudiated the fads. I wanted to stick to that which was scientifically verifiable and accepted: the food pyramid. However both have changed since the nineties. Now, in order to lose weight, your cardio must include more of a circuit training where your heart rate gets up into its anaerobic state every so often. This is something that I used to teach against with (scientific) resolve. On top of this, the food pyramid has been turned upside down and subjectivized! Now, I am not saying what I did before did not work…it did. But it was not really right. There is a stability to say that exercise and proper nutrition are essential to weight loss. But I am no longer quite so committed to a particular type of exercise and nutrition. It is not so stable. Some of my theories have been literally turned upside down! That is just one example of the sort of things that can dissolution a person toward so-called scientific conclusions.

Here is a list of some other things that have changed over the years with regard to scientific ideas:

• Maternal impression (the mother’s thoughts can influence the child’s)
• Human cell (simplistic to complex)
• The status of Pluto (no longer a planet)
• Piltdown man (scientific hoax about a “missing link” in evolution)
• The food pyramid (turned upside down)
• Health benefits of alcohol (bad for you one day, good for you the next)
• Leeches (depending on the century you are in, very good for medicinal purposes—which? Who knows?)
• Darwinian evolution (changes much faster than we do!)
• Light (what is it? particles? waves? emitter theory, etc),
• Speed of light (is it steady or relative?)
• The osculating universe (the universe is eternally osculating)
• Steady state theory (the universe has never changed)
• Big bang theory (a big bang started it all–superseded both the osculating universe and steady state theories)
• Nature of time (relativity theories are the current standard)
• Global Warming (do I need to explain?)
• Global Cooling (oh yeah, we have those theories too)
• Creation science (can I even make this a single category?)
• Spontaneous generation (the way it all began…then again, maybe not)
• Y2K (oh yeah! This did come from the scientific community)
• Punctuated equilibrium (a drastic change in how species evolve)
• Phlogiston theory(superseded by Lavoisier’s work on oxidation)
• The blank slate theory of social behavior (disproven by cross-cultural universals)
• Aristotelian physics (superseded by Newtonian physics which was [somewhat] superseded by Einstein)
• Just about everything in Freudian psychology (most have been discredited, yet this influenced so much for so long)
• Telegony (a discredited belief that people could inherit traits of previous sexual partners of their mother)
• Continental drift (replaced by plate tectonics)
• Catastropheism (belief that a catastrophe has drastically changed the way things are)
• Uniformatarianism (the current replacement for Catastropheism—that is, until catastropheism takes back over and then everything is up in the air in so many areas)
• The so-called Open Polar Sea (you know, that sea without any ice that was supposed to be around the north poll?)
• The expanding earth theory (wait, isn’t this how the continents divided? Depends on which century you are in)
• Quantum mechanics (the new kid on the block)

Once again, most of these represent theories that were once accepted as true or those that are the current champions in their particular area. The point is to recognize the dynamic nature of the history of science. You can add your own to the list. Please do.

We live in a postmodern world where people are disillusioned with all authoritative means of knowledge, science and the Bible included. For the most part, it is due to the fact that things change. Interpretations change. Theories change. Presuppositions change. The data changes. Our experience changes.

This does not mean that the truth itself is dynamic, but it might help you to understand why people are so confused about truth these days. It might also help you to understand why science does not reign the way it once did. While I love science, appreciate its discoveries and am intrigued by its conclusions, I am very careful about committing myself to whatever the prevailing notion is today. I think you should be tentative as well. While I don’t think the history of science is the history of bad idea, it is the history of dynamic change and discovery that is not as stable as we once thought.Similar Posts:

• Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
• The Creation-Evolution Debate in a Nutshell
• Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design – A Review
• The Galileo Incident: A Clash of Faith and Science?
• Inferring Design from Anti-Design Scientists

This is very common in our world. It is also, to some degree, understandable. People are tired of the search for answers and have decided to just enjoy the journey. While it may not be called “emerging” anymore, the mood is still present and represents a large portion of our culture and church.

For these, the search has brought them nothing but confusion and disillusionment. There are so many things that they used to believe—used to passionately believe—that they no longer believe. They are embarrassed about their former commitments. Because of this, the best approach to theological issues is a sort of “soft-agnosticism.” In other words, people are not saying that truth does not exist, they are simply saying that they don’t know what it is and they don’t think you do either.

As a coping mechanism, theology is distanced from “practical” (Christian) living. Orthodoxy (right thinking) is disassociated with orthopraxy (right living).

A few words of advice for those who find themselves here or heading here:

1. There is no way to distance yourself from theology. Even the belief that theology is impractical for Christian living is a theological belief. One would have to assume quite a bit about theology in order to make such an assertion. Agnosticism is a theological stance, and quit a complex one at that. You are a theologian whether you like it or not. The question is can you give sufficient warrant for your beliefs.

2. No one can live rightly without believing rightly. Most fundamentally, people act according to what they believe. As the old saying goes, “you are what  you eat,” a better version of this is, “you are what you believe.” Just because there is the possibility that you could be wrong, this does not justify an apathetic attitude toward theology. I appreciate people’s timidity and I wish that some people had more. We dare not to take the Lord’s name in vain. Silence is often better than speaking. But to harden one’s self into such a philosophy is the most dangerous proposition of all. When our practice is devoid of foundational beliefs, we will be carried about by every wave and current of thought simply ascribing to that which seem the most pragmatic at the time. Today, it is faddish to be apathetic toward theology. But this is not Christian. The Christian worldview is about theology first. It is about who Christ is. It is about what God has done. It is about following a definite person who we can point to and distinguish from others. It is about a definite hope. If you were to take these away, the who? what? why? and where? of our practice is void. Therefore, our practice is void.

Christianity rests first on what we believe, not what we do. What we do is a product of what we believe. Practice without belief does not please the Lord. There is simply no room for it in the Christian life.

3. Get over the fear of being wrong. Like the jilted lover who fails to seek a relationship because of the possibility of being hurt (again), many people fail to believe because of the possibility of being wrong (again). We are all going to be wrong about many things. But, there are many things that we are going to be right about. The Lord assumes such. The Proverbs commands us to be wise: “Acquire truth and do not sell it” (Prov. 23:23). You may have been jilted by truth before. Our way is called a “narrow gate.” You may be scared of recommitting yourself to the search. You may think you are beyond commitment. But you must do so anyway.

Who ever said the Christian life was easy? If you are looking for an easy life, join in with the world. There you can find enough apathy. Here, in Christianity, we will normally be called to go against the current. We usually take a road less traveled. We pick ourselves back up time and time again and continue the journey, knowing that there is a definite destination. The Christian life is about new beginnings.

My encouragement to those of you who have been jilted by theology is to stand back up. Let go of the assumptions that led you to think that it is always easy. The truth is like gold, fine gold. The truth will produce in you fruit that the unfertile ground of apathy cannot ever yield. Don’t commit yourself to the mire of disillusionment. So you have been wrong before. So what? So you have been misled before. So what? So you have fallen and been humiliated. So what? Get up. Just be careful. Learn from your mistakes. But open yourself up again to commitment. Don’t live a life of apathy. Take the road less traveled.Similar Posts:

• "Belief is No Good Without Practice" . . . and Other Stupid Statements
• I Know God, But I Don't Like Him
• Theology Avoidance Disorder
• “Why Doesn’t Everyone Agree with Me?” or Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God
• Sometimes Faith Does Take Faith

As I have been reading and reviewing books and blogs over the years, my approach has changed. This was not an overnight change, but something that just happened the more involved I became in engaging those who were serious about teaching and learning with intellectual honesty and integrity (something that, I am sad to say, does not often characterize Christian leaders and teachers). There are certain characteristics that I have found in people’s teaching that immediately alert me to the realization that I am wasting my time (which I don’t a whole lot of!).

Here are some key issues that tap me on the shoulder and demand my attention be redirected:

• Overstatement
• Unqualified Superlatives
• Non-Contingent Propositions

Hang with me. I will explain.

This is probably not the list you expected. Many of your lists would include clarity, systematic presentation, grammar and spelling, and reference support. Those things are important to me as well (although you may not have noticed from my writing!), but the above list is what I notice most, especially in presentations and arguments that are theological in nature.

Overstatement, unqualified superlatives, and non-contingent propositions, are related and can be thought of as different ways of saying the same thing. In fact, you might say that they all belong in the same semantic domain that we might call “imbalance.” Once I detect imbalance, I usually have a hard time going on. Think of phrases like these: 

“I am absolutely certain that . . .”

“There is not a doubt in my mind . . .”

“The church has always believed . . .”

“Everyone knows that . . .”

“It is perfectly clear . . .”

“No educated person believes . . .”

“Nothing could be further from the truth.”

And the like.

It is the tendency to represent your case without what many people call “epistemic humility”—a real understanding that you could be wrong. We all have a problem saying “I could be wrong” or “in my opinion” because we feel as if in doing so we are making concessions that undermine our case. We like to give our readers and listeners continued and perpetual confidence in the argument of our presentation. We feel that if we don’t gain this confidence at every point and turn, we have poked holes in our own vessel and that by the end of the voyage, our ship will be sunk. Therefore, everything must be air-tight. There is no room for personal opinion since the subjectivity that it presents gives way to uncertainty. There is no room for contingency, no room for insufficient data, and no place for the legitimacy of the opposition, even to the slightest degree. If we believe what what we are saying, we must justify this belief beyond any possibility of a doubt.

But, ironically, especially in a hyper-critical postmodern world, we give credit to our case when we do represent the transparency that accompanies real contingency and the revelation of epistemic humility. We show that we have a broader understanding of the issues. It evidences an honest wrestling with the subject of the proposition. In the end, when we do come to a conclusion on the matter, even with all the contingencies that we have worn on our sleeve, readers become more confident in your ability to think with integrity and have a greater confidence in your conclusions.

Notice what Strunk and White have to say in their popular book on writing style. Also, notice that this is not a book about how to write theology, but how to communicate through writing. The wise and timeless principles expressed here can be applied to any communication venue (even an argument with your spouse!)

“When you overstate, readers will be instantly on guard and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in their minds because they have lost confidence in your judgment or your poise. Overstatement is one of the common faults. A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for readers, the object of your enthusiasm.” (Strunk and White. Elements of Style, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 7).

Do you understand what they are saying? Once you characterize yourself with this type of imbalance, it is very rare that you will gain an audience. Well, let me say this another way: Once your arguments carry such imbalance, it is very rare that you will gain an audience except with those who already agree with you. The object of your enthusiasm becomes diminished, finding relative balance in the strengths of your other overstatements.

Here is where it gets very important: If Jesus Christ is the object of your enthusiasm, does his death, burial, and resurrection find equal qualification with your belief that your church is the one true church, that the world was created in six literal days, that the anti-Christ is Obama? Overstatement can destroy our testimony. With such a methodology the discharge of the Gospel becomes hamstrung.

Let me back up and say that if someone uses unqualified superlatives, overstatements, or non-contingent statements wisely and sparingly with intentionality, so long as their credibility has thus been established, I will not only tolerate them, but listen to them with a greater degree of interest and consideration. Why? Because they show themselves to be balanced and worthy of consideration.

Please note, this is not a postmodern concession to relativism, for I am not advocating that people hide convictions or not take stand for what they believe. Neither am I saying that you cannot have great degrees of certainty and assurance about many of your convictions. I am simply telling people that if you overstate your case, no matter what it is, I will have a hard time listening to what you have to say. And I think I speak for many.

I would be careful and consider whether or not you are wasting your own time in writing and teaching if these overstatements characterize your approach. We honor God when we stand up for the truth, but we don’t honor him when we misrepresent the truth to accomplish our presupposed agenda that has not been critically thought through. God help us all to use our words wisely, especially those of us who are teachers.Similar Posts:

• Why I Won’t Listen to You (or Read Your Writing)
• Theology is the pursuit of truth, not prejudice
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice
• "The Bible Says it, therefore it's True" . . . And Other Stupid Statements

I often play this game with my kids that drives them crazy. Sitting in the room, with no one but us, while they are not looking I will slap them on the rear and act like I did not do it. They turn and say, “Daddy! I know you did that.” I say, “I did not.” ”Then who did it?” they respond (thinking they have settled the issue with this one question).  I say, “A guy ran into the front door and slapped them and then ran out.” They look at me like I am crazy. “Look!” I respond to their skepticism, “The door is not locked. It is obvious that someone could have come in since the door is not locked.” Upon further looks of skepticism, I have them go check the door to see if it is locked or not. Once they check and see it is unlocked, I have won the day. I have poked a hole and their certainty and even caused them to confirm it. No longer possessing the indubitably that I have required for their epistemic verification, they now have lost poise in their former confidence. In other words, I tricked them into thinking that one has to be absolutely certain about something before it can be believed.

Ideas about the value of certainty are currently on the theological stage of debate. With the postmodern push toward perpetual skepticism that gives way to necessary compromise and a redefining tolerance, along with many in the church responding by appealing to a fidist approach to the faith (ignore the evidence, just believe), Evangelicals are found scratching their heads, wondering why we are checking the door to see if it is locked.

“You can’t be certain that Christianity is true. Some have said that it borrowed from other ancient religions to get its story.”

“You can’t be certain Christ rose from the grave since his body might have been stolen.”

When a suspicious world says that we cannot be certain about anything because of the alternative possibilities, we find ourselves defending a position drunk with its own form of compromise. When people poke holes in our beliefs with arguments no better than “look, the door is not locked” we find ourselves missing the big picture, attempting to argue about the security of the door.

How did we get here?

The father of the so-called Age of Reason, Rene Descartes, was commissioned by a cardinal in the church to find a way of attaining a level of certainty that went beyond mere probability. With skepticism on the rise, probability was looked at as the ugly step-sister of the indubitability that accompanied absolute certainty. Indubitability equates to infallible knowledge—knowledge that can’t be wrong. Prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists by mere intuitive resources. That was Descartes commission.

(Let me repeat as this may be a new word to some of you. Indubitability describes the impossibility of being wrong due to an exhaustive and infallible method of inquiry; beyond the possibility of question or doubt.) 

There was celebration at Descartes seeming defeat of the skepticism of his day. His “I think therefore I am” looked as if it provided a bridge to attain the type of certainty to which humans have never been privy.  His methodology, which became known as “the Cartesian method,” was adopted in large part by those in the West. And thus began the Age of Reason, where certainty—indubitable certainty—reined supreme.

Christianity was never bound by any sort of indubitably from a human perspective. We have never been required to check the lock on any door. In fact, no one actually can or does live by such a method in the acquisition of truth.

But alas, we often think we are supposed to. We have turned “the evidence that demands a verdict” into “the evidence that produces indubitably.” At least that is what we are pressured into doing.

Once this method does not produce absolute certainty, once we cannot account for the door being unlocked, we find ourselves wondering why we are being forced to check the door in the first place. Yet we do it anyway. When the door is unlocked, those who are epistemically conditioned to find this substantial, like my children, enter into a state of suspended belief, doubt, or skepticism or opt for a “leap of faith” that demands no evidence, and then sneer at those who do demand evidence as if it is passé.

What my kids should say is this, “Daddy, I don’t care if the door is unlocked. It does not play a sufficient part in your proposition to warrant a disregard of the greater areas of viability with regard to our belief that you are the one who slapped us.” And if I respond, “But you don’t know with perfect, absolute, and infallible certainty,” they should say, “No daddy, probability is sufficient to warrant, yea, demand a belief such as ours and, as a consequence, to reject your alternative.” Well, if they said it like that, I would be scared, but you know what I am saying.

Probability is sufficient. We neither need to go into intellectual hibernation and accept our beliefs on blind faith nor do we need to suspend our belief until all the objections, no matter how improbable, are answered (i.e. we don’t need to check the door).

What I posed to my children was merely a possibility to explain the slap, but possibilities do not create probabilities. We are responsible in this life to act upon the revelation given to us, not to seek absolute indubitably.

We are neither postmodern skeptics nor modern rationalists. We find value in both skepticism, when truly warranted, and rationality, when the probability is conditioned by God to be such.

In other words, our belief in Christ’s resurrection should not be sidetracked simply because someone presents an alternative possibility. Yes, we engage these alternatives, but we don’t give them more credit than they deserve. The old illustration of the “leaky bucket” only finds relevance in an imaginary world where indubitability is required for ever rational decision. Those who say that the Christian story borrowed from other religions or that Christ’s body was thrown into a shallow grave have simply presented other possibilities that are often no more sufficient to warrant credibility than my “look, the door is unlocked.” Possibility, yes. Probability, no.

Don’t be shaken by unlikely theories.

Don’t hypocritically require indubitability.

Don’t think that all possibilities are equal.

Don’t opt for a “leap of faith” type of faith.

Just because something is possible does not make it probable.

Finally, and most importantly, I believe that the resurrection of Christ is probable to such a degree that the only rational option is for all people to fall on their face and worship him.Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Completely Certain that Christianity is True
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Seven – What About the Canon?
• Paul Copan on Christian Doubt
• Is this a good illustration of our belief in the truthfulness of Scripture?
• Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!