Here I continue discussion of Daniel Taylor’s book The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Risk of Commitment with Chapter 5: The Risk of Commitment. If you have read the chapter, feel free to comment. If not, feel free to ask a question. In any case, be sure to follow the rules laid out at the end here.
On page 113 Dan says “I do not have absolute certainty that anything I believe is true.” One has to admire Dan’s honesty. My response is that it all depends on what “absolute certainty” means. When I am confronted with someone who claims to have absolute certainty of something I tend to doubt him or her. However, when asked if I am absolutely certain of something I stumble to answer. I don’t know what he or she means by absolute certainty. I have turned out to be wrong about some things I thought I was certain about. On the other hand, I find no reason to doubt many things that I believe, even things I cannot prove to someone else. I still wrestle with whether I am one of Dan’s reflective Christians or not.
I was surprised and delighted by this quote in Dan’s story about the prisoner “Alexander Isaevich.” On page 117 he says “There is good and there is evil, and the difference between the is absolute.” With that I agree. I find myself certain of it. I cannot imagine ever doubting or denying that. That says to me that I may not be a fully reflective Christian. On the other hand, if I try hard enough, I find that I can doubt many things I am not supposed to doubt—according to fellow conservative Christians. Yesterday someone asked me what I think about eternal hell as torment of the “wicked.” I discovered instantly that I can doubt it. I don’t deny it; I just find it troubling, hard to believe, in light of my commitment to God as love and Jesus Christ as (potential) savior of all mankind.
The main “gist” of this chapter is Dan’s argument that the reflective Christian has every right to commit to Christianity (not Christendom) without being able to prove it true. In fact, he argues that doubt can open the door to commitment which, to his way of thinking, is more important than belief in doctrines.
I do not think Dan is arguing for Christianity as requiring a “leap of faith” in the sense many people think of that—as a kind of irrational choice, a “will to believe” without reasons. I could be wrong. I hope not.
On thing that caught my attention was Dan’s claim on page 96 that “God Himself has been a risk-taker.” Now this book was published by a leading evangelical publisher BEFORE the big “open theism controversy” broke out. Dan taught at the very same college as Greg Boyd who was so harassed and abused by constituents of the college (and others). Did they not read Dan’s book? Some of them were always heresy-hunting and harassing the president and the faculty over this or that alleged departure from perfect orthodoxy (e.g., believing that women can preach and even pastor). Dan’s statement is more than a hint at open theism. But…Dan taught English and not theology. I suspect that made all the difference to the denomination’s heresy-hunters many of who studied under Dan at some point.
*Note: If you choose to comment or ask a question, be sure to keep it 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