Here I continue discussion of Daniel Taylor’s book The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Myth of Certainty (InterVarsity Press). If you have read Chapter 2 you may comment here. If not, feel free to ask a question. In any case, follow the rules at the end here.
Chapter 2 is entitled The Reflective Christian and the Church. Here Dan reveals what he thinks about many American churches, especially (but not only) ones he and I consider fundamentalist or at least strongly conservative.
“Questioning the institution [the church’s leaders] is synonymous, for many, with attacking God.” (30) Dan tells a story that probably reflects something that happened to him at a Christian college. I have always assumed that “Alex” is Dan. Alex/Dan dared to challenge something something written by an esteemed colleague in the student newspaper. The college dean came to Alex’s/Dan’s office to warn him against such.
This, or something like it, happened to me on several occasions, within Christian institutions, when I was right and the ideas I challenged were clearly wrong. But I won’t tell my own stories of that here. I have sometimes before.
Dan then rightly says “The danger toward which the appropriate exercise of authority always tends is authoritarianism—the exercise of authority for its own sake and to ensure its own perpetuation.” (34) Also, “Legalistic authoritarianism shows itself in the confusion of the Christian principle of unity with a human insistence on unanimity.” (35)
I found this to be the central truth of the chapter: “Not only is Christendom not synonymous with a life in Christ, following Christ may well require rejecting parts of Christendom. The church is continually tempted to confuse its mission to spread and embody the ‘good news’ with the need every organization feels to perpetuate and enhance itself.” (43)
Is this problem unique to fundamentalist and conservative churches and institutions? I know it is not. I have been a member of several liberal-leaning churches and Christian or theological organizations. Must I tell? Well, unless I do I know someone will express doubts.
I was working on my doctoral dissertation for a major secular American national research university. I had chosen to research and write about one of the world’s foremost Protestant theologians. I went overseas to study with him. Back here (in America) I finished my dissertation, satisfied that I understood his theology in a way others had not. He read much of it and expressed approval. I submitted my mostly positive dissertation to my committee. My advisor and chair of the committee was satisfied, but with real regret told me that one of the committee members said he would not put his stamp of approval on it unless I re-wrote it to be mostly critical of the theologian’s ideas. I knew the two of them, the European theologian and the American theologian on my dissertation committee, had an adverse relationship. They knew each other. There was some personal animosity between them that stemmed from an encounter at the divinity school where the committee member had previously taught. I had no choice but to revise my dissertation so that it was mostly negative toward the German theologian’s thoughts. I didn’t write anything false; I only brought to the fore critics’ qualms about his theology. Ultimately the committee member was satisfied and I was afforded “honor” for my finally accepted dissertation. But word about it got back to the German theologian who after that was not pleased with me. I never told him why the “drift” of the dissertation had changed since he read a first draft of it.
The committee member did not find any factual fault with my dissertation. He did not disagree with my analysis or conclusions about what the German theologian meant (something missed by all previous commentators and critics). I illuminated his theology in a new and insightful way. However, for my committee member’s satisfaction I had not been sufficiently critical, negative, toward the German theologian’s overall contribution.
The committee member was a well-known, influential liberal Protestant theologian, not a fundamentalist or conservative one. He was smug about his belief that the German theologian, a fairly conservative Lutheran, was an overall pernicious influence in contemporary theology.
The issue Dan Taylor is talking about is “smugness” — in addition to defensiveness about institutional traditions and beliefs. Liberals can be just as close-minded as conservatives. They can be just as smug and even punitive toward those who disagree as conservatives can be. The issue Dan and I have is not about intolerance toward intolerance. It is about religious leaders’ tendency to disallow dissent within the ranks.
Of course, I especially identify with Dan’s stories about “Alex.” I found myself in “Alex’s” shoes many times in conservative Christian institutions. Also in liberal-leaning and secular ones.
I still wrestle with whether I count as one of Dan’s reflective Christians. I think I was earlier in life. Now, I’m not sure. I think I am still in my own private world, my mind. But over the years I have learned to be extremely cautious about questioning leaders when that could come back to “haunt” me. Once burned, always cautious. Many times burned, it becomes part of your defense mechanism subconsciously to shy away from conflict with defensive institutional leaders.
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In