Christianity, Confidence and Chuck

I haven’t had an opportunity to mention con artists and confidence men since Sawyer and his fellow crash survivors went into the light. [sob, sniffle]

The last episode of Chuck brought the subject up again, however, and at one point focused on the fact that “con” comes from “con man” which comes from “confidence man,” and in fact, confidence is a key component in a con – winning the confidence of the person you want to steal from, to be sure, but even that is dependent on the confidence of the con artist himself or herself.

Is it any wonder that so many Christians find themselves getting conned? American Christianity in particular has, since the age of the Puritans, had a distinctive focus on religious experience, individual fervor, and preaching. Christians in the United States have long been suckers for someone who stands in a pulpit and states his views confidently, stating over and over again that his (yes, typically it is a male) views are not his views but God’s. Time and again the claims are met with loud Amens and large cash donations.

If you are a Star Wars fan, think “So this is how liberty dies – with thunderous applause.” It isn’t just Christians who are prone to being taken advantage of. But we have fostered a culture that not only makes it possible but actually encourages it. Even the average pastor’s employment depends on an ability to ooze confidence even when he or she lacks it, since the average congregation wants to be led by someone with vision, not wishy-washy uncertainty.

But uncertainty is often more honest than confidence, and it is disappointing that we prefer groundless confidence to wise hesitation and caution. It is those with the greatest expertise in an area who not only know the most, but also realize best the limitations of our knowledge and the degrees of our certainties and uncertainties. And time and again, people turn away from the cautious experts to confident ignoramuses and charlatans. And while I suspect that most of those who peddle dubious theological, ethical and pseudoscientific teachings are in the former category, that is, among those who don’t know any better rather than those who willfully deceive, they should know that they don’t know any better and refrain from offering their view as truth. But instead, they speak their ill-informed minds with confidence.

And it is our fault, those of us who allow them to unchallenged, and who either actively or passively contribute to a culture in which confidence counts for more than expertise.

Elsewhere around the blogosphere, here are some items of interest:

Rod of Alexandria and Joel Watts chime in on my discussion with Nick Norelli.

Stephen Douglas weeps for Charles Spurgeon

Deane Galbraith talks about Maurice Casey’s treatment of women as witnesses to the empty tomb

Dennis Vennema continues his series on evolution and biological information.

Ken Schenck shares information about a conference on faith in the science classroom.

Rachel Held Evans shares a RATT (or is it a TART?)

Stephen Cook is on iTunes and Hamblin of Jerusalem tries his hand at a video review (of Bart Ehrman’s recent book Forged).