The Myth of Certainty

Some of you may know the name Ben Witherington III. He's a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. I discovered and started reading his blog a number of months ago. I actually had a book of his from a Early Christian History class at UCLA, but I recently sold it on Amazon because I knew I'd never read it again! (I may not have read it or much of it for my class either...oops.) Most of his blogs are far too long to read (in my opinion), but every so often the time needed to read a long entry is very worthwhile.

This post is one of those gems. He communicates much of what I've thought (and so much more) about Calvinism and even more importantly, our tendency to avoid the uncomfortable tension between faith and intellect. More specifically, this post is centered on John Piper’s defense of Calvinism and also how Calvinists tend to relate to people and their view the world. Of course, Piper is a “poster-boy” for Calvinism and has many committed followers around the world. I’ve seen him speak and have repeatedly been impressed with his depth, passion, and ability to mobilize Christians for reaching the lost. But also, I’ve had regular negative experiences with followers of his who have tendencies to do things such as: dismiss contrary views as weak or even wrong, adopt his view on most any matter, and gobble up every book he’s ever written. I’ll come back to this after giving the Prof some props on some well written thoughts.

After you’re given a chance to hear an audio clip of Piper, Witherington makes his case. Here’s a sampling of his take on Piper and Calvinism/Calvinists:

What he does not add, that could have been added, is that, for whatever reason, Calvinism seems to feed a deep seated need in many persons for a kind of intellectual certainty about why the world is as it is, and what God is exactly like, and how his will is worked out in the world, and most particularly how salvation works and whether or not one is a saved person.
And all too often, the apparent intellectual coherency of a theological system is taken as absolute and compelling proof that this view of God, salvation,the world must be true and all others be heresy, to one degree or another. But it is perfectly possible to argue logically and coherency in a hermeneutical or theological circle with all parts connected, and unfortunately be dead wrong-- because one drew the circle much too small and left out all the inconvenient contrary evidence. This sort of fault is inevitable with theological systems constructed by finite human beings.

I don’t know about you, but I find that compelling, effective, and even comforting. My natural tendency for certainty doesn’t have to always be satisfied. Living with uncertainty is reality and even a necessity for authentic faith. I believe our human nature (and living in a fallen world) longs for certainty and clarity. Certainty is a great thing to have. But the gray areas of life are many and there is great danger in turning a gray area into something black and white, or even the appearance of it.

So, back to my thoughts on leadership that struggles with ambiguity…

Something I've experienced over the years is how consistent people respond to pastors, teachers, professors, or any leader-types who tend to hold controversial views that are heavy on the "certainty spectrum”. What I've seen is that the listener/follower tends to put (whether they intend to or not) this person or doctrine on a pedestal and can't quite seem to muster up real openness to other views. Not only have I seen it with Piper, but with other prominent leaders as well. I’ll refrain from naming names, but I bet you can come up with a few yourself. I don’t doubt the hearts of these leaders at all. What I do doubt is their ability to grasp how their teaching, teaching style, and even delivery is received and integrated into the hearts and minds of their listeners. For example, I don’t mind when Piper gets excited, emphatic, and dramatic…but when that crosses over into areas that deserve a little more reservation, he doesn’t seem to self-adjust. And if a mature leader doesn’t do that, should we expect their follower to do any different?

The tragic part is that this white-knuckle grip on "truth" seems to guarantee that you'll eventually prove to only have half-truths or all-out errors in your hands. And the fallout bleeds into far more than theology—relational and personal dynamics produce impasses, tension, and frustration. All of which are sadly unnecessary.

So, my thanks to Professor Witherington III for a courageous evaluation and confidence to keep the “theological circle” appropriately wide.

My continued learning points are: (1) let gray areas be gray and (2) remember that twisting inherent uncertainty into certainty will produce a culture that becomes rigid, uninviting, and even destructive.

Interested in your thoughts…