I sit here with an uncomfortable feeling in my gut. It is a
feeling that has been around for a long time now. Sometimes the feeling seems
to have teeth that gnaw at me, other times it lays dormant, maybe for a week,
maybe a few months; whatever the case it continues to rear its ugly head.
I have been unsure of whether or not to blog this, but here
I go (so maybe it is time?).
The disconcerting trend that makes me anxious is a growing
idolatry of certainty within churches, and pejorative name calling by those
within the church. These two things seem to be on the rise, slowly but surely,
they march on to dominate and oppress others who do not fit the mould. I am
experiencing and witnessing this trend within Abbotsford, as well as in the
greater area of the lower mainland. The trend has been growing recently (or
maybe I am simply continuing to become more aware of it).
I have two examples of the pejorative verbatim tossed around
in churches, in Bible
College, and even in
conversations between friends. These two examples point toward an underlying
sentiment, which I believe is one factor in the rise of idolizing certainty.
The first example comes from far away (better to attack what is at a distance
before striking too near the heart). Three years ago in Israel, while
learning about the physical and geographical settings of the Bible, I was
confronted by “maximalist” and “minimalist”. These terms regarded the “group” a
certain scholar or idea fit. For example, are these group of rocks store houses
or stables? One position was maximalist, one was minimalist. The “maximalists”
held to a certain position, usually that which “agreed” with the Bible, and the
“minimalist” position would conclude differently. Both positions looked at the
same evidence, and considered the Bible, and came to different conclusions (it
is my opinion that both groups we guilty of cooking the evidence at times). The
problem that arises, the thing that rubs me the wrong way, is that once the
groupings were established the way the terms were used became harmful. This
occurred in Israel,
by the end of the trip if you thought a “minimalist” position might be right
there was a stigma sent in your direction. You obviously had weak faith, you
did not believe the Bible (or at least you do not take it seriously), you may
not be saved, you were sub par, and you might even be a “liberal”! The
classification of “minimalist” became a pejorative.
The second example is quickly growing in the vernacular of
the circles I skirt. It is defence of one’s ideas by entrenching one’s self
based on having a “high view of scripture”. This subsequently implies, or has
even be explicitly stated, that the one with whom he or she disagrees has a
“low view of scripture”. It has been my experience, and some of those around
me, that this is incredibly hurtful, often said without proper thought or care
for the other, and can be invested with a derogatory tone.
Here are some thoughts/responses to this pejorative usage: A)
simply because you land in one place and someone else disagrees does not mean
he or she has a “low view of scripture”, there have been disagreements for as
long as religion has existed (so get off your “high” horse). B) One’s worldview
often dictates one’s conclusions more than external evidence. Scripture might
not even be the actual argument or disagreement; rather there may be a clash of
worldview. So, if one dogmatically claims the “high view of scripture” without
plenty of self-critique and humility, he or she exudes arrogance, pride,
self-righteousness, and ignorance. C) Just because the historical/grammatical
method of exegesis and interpretation lead to one answer it does not mean it is
the “correct” answer or interpretation. It was not simply arrived at because of
one’s “high view of scripture”. There are a plethora of interpretive methods,
and a vast array of interpretations within each method, so honestly consider
some alternative possibilities. D) Someone might hold such a “high view of
scripture” that they have spent their entire life studying, reading, investing
resources, listening to others, caring for others, and re-thinking faith. This
person may eventually come to a new or different conclusion because of their
“high view of scripture”, so to then label this new view as having it base in a
“low view of scripture” is to slander the other.
Whew, it feels nice to get that off my internet chest. Which
leads us to the new atheists (fundamentalists), atheists, as those who rely on
the idolatry of certainty. Positions arrived at by the underlying disposition
that manifests itself in pejorative language.
Rolling beneath these trends of pejorative vernacular is a
more disconcerting movement. It is a movement of correctness. Not political
correctness or the certainty that 2+2=4 within the agreed upon public consciousness
(“where as 2+2=5”, as my dad would say, “in very high values of 2”). No,
“correctness” in the manner of “I am right” (implying all others to be wrong).
This “correctness” lies in the outflow of certainty. The need for certainty, or
rather the religious crutch of certainty, which will lead to a behaviour of
“correctness”. This may manifest itself is such statements as “I know what I
know”, or “ask questions, find answers”, or “don’t read that! He or she is a
heretic”, or “maybe it is more…but it is certainly
not less”. It is in such statements that idols are erected. Idols that stand in
the place of something or more often then not someone. The idol of certainty
limits our ability to interact with each other as well as God. For if we are
certain of God or another, we implicitly demote him or her or God from the
position of a free agent or person to the realm of object, where actions are
known and can be calculated. Such object interactions are bound to fail, people
continue to surprise, and God continues to defy boxes.
Certainty, and the idolization of it, manifests itself in
both Atheism and Fundamentalism (given there are exceptions, I know some great
doubting Atheists, as well as a few questioning fundamentalists). Certainty had
it heyday with modernism. “I think therefore I am”, “only that which can be
proven through the scientific method can be known”, “the Bible says…”, etc.
This time gave rise to atheism as it is commonly understood as well as religious
fundamentalism. These two groups are not very far apart in their mode of
thought, rather they reflect each other, not as estranged cousins but more like
. Both appear to lack an epistemological humility, and a disposition towards
the knower’s fallibility.
I’ll leave it at that, knowing I am probably wrong ;)
