Here I continue and conclude discussion of Daniel Taylor’s book The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Risk of Commitment (IVP) with Chapter 6: Surviving As a Reflective Christian. If you have read the chapter, feel free to comment. If not, feel free to ask a question. In either case be sure to follow the rules stated at the end here.
”Nothing should be of higher value to the reflective Christian in difficult circumstances than an unqualified desire to see truth triumph.” (126)
This chapter deals, however, with HOW the reflective Christian should seek to live in two (mostly American) subcultures: the conservative Christian church and institution and the secular, pluralist, intellectual context (of much modern education and professional society culture). Dan explains and illustrates how he has existed in both subcultures and found such existence tenuous at best—as a reflective Christian. Throughout the book he makes clear that the tension for him and other reflective Christians is created by the smugness and narrow-mindedness of SOME people in both subcultures. Both subcultures, he says, TEND to marginalize people who question unquestionable dogmas of their belief systems.
Dan’s recommendation to reflective Christians is twofold. First, recognize the good in both subcultures and focus on that. Second, develop an attitude of humility, compassion and empathy in relation to both subcultures. A third recommendation almost goes without saying: Stay reflective, don’t cave into pressure to sacrifice honest and sincere doubt about the questionable claims of true believers in both subcultures.
Dan is right and wrong. Mostly right. However, he himself left the ultra-conservative college where he began his teaching career. There are times and situations where a reflective Christian simply has to shake the dust off his or her shoes and move on. I had to do that when I discovered that I would never be welcome (to stay) in the denomination in which I grew up and in which most of my family members worshiped.
One area where I demur from agreeing with Dan is on page 129: “Truth cannot be adequately evaluated on an objective or propositional level.” My response is that it depends on what kind of truth we are talking about. I suspect this statement is aimed at religious truth, or truth about ultimate reality and the meaning of life. Dan goes on to say that that kind of truth is “relational.” I don’t disagree, but I think this may be a false either-or. I lean more into a certain kind of apologetics than Dan did when he wrote this book.
Throughout this book Dan has three “audiences” in mind. First, the reflective Christian who may not realize what he or she is and struggles because absolutists in his or her context push him or her away and hold him or her at arm’s length. Second, the dogmatic, closed-minded, smug religious person who is suspicious of anyone who doesn’t believe his or her way. Third, the dogmatic, closed-minded, smug secular person who is suspicious of anyone with real religious beliefs and commitments. This book is therapy for the first audience and criticism of the second and third.
*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