The Sin of Certainty

[MustardSeed]

It can be annoying to me when people claim that their way is best.  It can come across as being not open to my thoughts and ideas. 

I do try to not come across this way when I talk about my religion. 

[churchistrue]

I love Pete Enns. He's a good model for someone who loses faith in some of the literal aspects of scripture but retains belief in the core and finds a way to make it work. His material and perspective can be valuable to those going through Mormon faith crisis. 

[JLHPROF]

"Following Christ" without following all his commandments is a fools errand.

This book's premise is one of the adversary's most popular tools right now.

[pogi]

Without having read the book it sounds like a good resource for those making their way out of a restrictive and limiting orthodoxy way of thinking and into a more healthy and inquisitive orthopraxy.

The one word that comes to mind when I think of the people who claim certainty (the literalist sola scriptorians, for example) when discussing religious beliefs is, “blind”.  Claiming certainty in religious beliefs is dangerous when one still relies on faith.  Certainty is the end of faith.  It is the end when I think we are all still on a path to more enlightenment.

There is nothing wrong with a deep and profound belief, but I have found that as I turn to God in prayer, my beliefs have all evolved into something I never before considered - line upon line.  To remain malleable and teachable we need an inquisitive faith, while certainty leads to an impenetrably hard heart.

Edited July 4, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Asserting that one way is better or more fruitful is the arrogance I detest.

Yes, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think it’s reasonable. 

Using your idea of what is arrogant, I could say that you are arrogant for asserting that you know that no way is better or more fruitful than another.  I wouldn’t say that because I don’t believe it but I could if I chose to mimic your example of what arrogance is.

 

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"Following Christ" without following all his commandments is a fools errand.

This book's premise is one of the adversary's most popular tools right now.

I don’t think the premise is to not follow the commandments,  rather it is to “trust in Christ” and follow him with an open heart to the best of our ability and understanding with a willingness to bend and stretch our understanding as guided by him.

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I purchased this book by scholar Peter Enns and am excited to read it. 

From the back cover:

“I had never openly explored my thinking about God, because I was taught that questioning too much was not safe Christian conduct—it would make God very disappointed in me, indeed, and quite angry. So dangerous thoughts lay dormant, never entering my conscious mind. . . . But a common and ordinary moment worked unexpectedly to snatch me from my safe, familiar, and unexamined spiritual neighborhood and plop me down somewhere I never thought I’d land. It was a forced spiritual relocation.”—The Sin of Certainty

 

When did being “right” with God come to mean believing the right things about God—believing the right doctrines, reading the Bible the right way, holding the right views? For many Christians, this idea is at the very center of their religious lives. And that’s a problem. Because this focus on being correct can actually distract us from faith and from God. What happens when the security of “knowing what you believe” gets disrupted—as it does sooner or later? What if once-settled questions—like “What is God really like?”—suddenly become unsettled?

These are some of the questions that teacher and scholar Peter Enns addresses in The Sin of Certainty. Here he explores what goes wrong when we have “believing the right things” at the center of our faith and what, instead, should be standing there. For those who have experienced their once rock-solid beliefs beginning to falter, Enns offers hope and guidance for finding a more trustworthy anchor. By exploring scripture and reflecting on his own journey, Enns reveals that challenges and crises of faith may be opportunities for deepening our faith and that God may be the one encouraging us to face those dangerous questions—in order for us to move from needing to be right to trusting God instead.

Why “Having the Right Beliefs” Is Not the Same as Having Faith

Many Christians have gone off course by putting belief and certainty at the center of their faith instead of simply following and trusting Jesus."

Anyone else read this book? 

I read it when it first came out and I think it’s excellent.  Peter Enns is a great guy and I loved how open he was about his personal journey.  

Also, it helped me to really contemplate what my relationship is to certainty in everything I do.  Also to see how important humility is, and really emphasize that trait as a core gospel principle for myself.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I love Pete Enns. He's a good model for someone who loses faith in some of the literal aspects of scripture but retains belief in the core and finds a way to make it work. His material and perspective can be valuable to those going through Mormon faith crisis. 

People like Pete Enns have helped me more on my Mormon faith journey than the nuanced Mormon community.  

[churchistrue]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

People like Pete Enns have helped me more on my Mormon faith journey than the nuanced Mormon community.  

Agree. It was Marcus Borg for me. I found Enns later. Inside the Mormon community, at least during the time I was in faith crisis, it was hard to find anyone talking like them. I got the sense there were people that took an approach like them, but it was all super vague, and I couldn't figure it out until I read liberal Christians explain it. 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Asserting that one way is better or more fruitful is the arrogance I detest.

I prefer strawberry.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Agree. It was Marcus Borg for me. I found Enns later. Inside the Mormon community, at least during the time I was in faith crisis, it was hard to find anyone talking like them. I got the sense there were people that took an approach like them, but it was all super vague, and I couldn't figure it out until I read liberal Christians explain it. 

Cool, Borg really helped me as well, also Mike McHargue, those two have probably been the most helpful for me.  

I think the reason none of the Mormon approaches have worked as well for me is that Mormons seem overwhelming focused on authority claims, and I see attempts to assert superiority and authority as prideful and flawed.  I also don’t find them helpful when it comes to core Christian ethics.  

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I purchased this book by scholar Peter Enns and am excited to read it. 

From the back cover:

“I had never openly explored my thinking about God, because I was taught that questioning too much was not safe Christian conduct—it would make God very disappointed in me, indeed, and quite angry. So dangerous thoughts lay dormant, never entering my conscious mind. . . . But a common and ordinary moment worked unexpectedly to snatch me from my safe, familiar, and unexamined spiritual neighborhood and plop me down somewhere I never thought I’d land. It was a forced spiritual relocation.”—The Sin of Certainty

 

When did being “right” with God come to mean believing the right things about God—believing the right doctrines, reading the Bible the right way, holding the right views? For many Christians, this idea is at the very center of their religious lives. And that’s a problem. Because this focus on being correct can actually distract us from faith and from God. What happens when the security of “knowing what you believe” gets disrupted—as it does sooner or later? What if once-settled questions—like “What is God really like?”—suddenly become unsettled?

These are some of the questions that teacher and scholar Peter Enns addresses in The Sin of Certainty. Here he explores what goes wrong when we have “believing the right things” at the center of our faith and what, instead, should be standing there. For those who have experienced their once rock-solid beliefs beginning to falter, Enns offers hope and guidance for finding a more trustworthy anchor. By exploring scripture and reflecting on his own journey, Enns reveals that challenges and crises of faith may be opportunities for deepening our faith and that God may be the one encouraging us to face those dangerous questions—in order for us to move from needing to be right to trusting God instead.

Why “Having the Right Beliefs” Is Not the Same as Having Faith

Many Christians have gone off course by putting belief and certainty at the center of their faith instead of simply following and trusting Jesus."

Anyone else read this book? 

Hi Valentinus,

I am unfamiliar with the book as are most of us apparently, including you, except for the back cover.  .

I hold that Christian doctrine should precede Christian practice. Think about what we are asked to do. Here is just one example out of many practical exhortations in the New Testament for total abandonment of our wills and our intellects, or even our bodies to Someone else.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service." (Rom. 12:2)

Reasonable service? Reasonable service? Is this going to be practical for one who hasn't been taught and accepted the first eleven chapters of Romans yet?

There is a pattern in St. Paul's letter to the Romans that is also used in others of his letters. Doctrine Before Practice. He spends the first eleven chapters of Romans expounding on sundry doctrines and early controversies about the faith. In ch. 11, he concludes his doctrinal lessons with a reminder of God's mercy and justice as it relates to Jew and Gentile making it clear that we can forfeit the privileges of being allowed to say "Abba, Father"(ch. 8).  Finally, the Apostle climbs the summit of possible knowledge of the interior life of Him whose teaching he was revealing. Then Paul asks us to revel with him in the great mystery of God:

"O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?" It is not until Chapter 12 that St. Paul shows us to what all this sublime teaching leads. It means that Someone has the right to gain from us an offering of our bodies, as a living sacrifice! Can you imagine the audacity of starting out with the practical side of Christianity before familiarity with why or how or Who? We cannot put such radical practical principles in to practice without a deep and rooted knowledge of how and why we are obliged to do so. Also, how and why it is the only way to happiness. It is what we are made for.  ---------------------------------------- Valentinus, I do not wish to be dismissive of the ideas in this book considering I have not even read it. I am uncomfortable with the title. It seems like it might fail to consider the gentlest, wisest, and joyful of Christian saints who the received the Sacred Traditions which Catholics believe to have been revealed by the Apostles. I will go a short distance, and probably agree with him if he says that one can mistakenly take comfort in apparently believing the right teaching, without putting it in to practice. But St. James assures us that faith without the works, ("taking up your Cross") is dead already. What I fear is that the author is going to ignore the saints. On the practical level, it seems like this idea of perceiving certainty in doctrine as almost a sin, could lead one away from necessary teachings about the need to be united in the communion of saints without which, it is impossible to reach our full potential in Jesus Christ. I don't want to compare the one with dead faith (correct doctrine/no practice) with the one who does his best to find spiritual consolation while despairing of finding doctrinal truth. I think we are supposed to desire to ascend to heights of sanctity that amazes the world and enkindles the fire of the Holy Ghost in those with whom it comes in to contact. I do not believe that with a true and deep interior life, anyone can perceive and aspire to the radical renouncement that God asks of us, trusting in His good will, without also receiving greater clarity and certainty about the teachings that were revealed by the Apostles. Without the lives of the Catholic Saints, I might be drawn to reconsider the obligation to identify Christ's true church, while submitting my judgment to her teaching. Of course "dead faith boy" shouldn't be emulated. Why bring up that straw man as an option? Everybody knows that isn't right. What about that group who are ignored to the detriment of souls? The saints. Their lives are so hard to believe that most Christians don't have enough faith to believe in their acts, let alone the miracles that sometimes give confirmation that the act is of God. Those of us who do believe have to overcome a certain fear. There is no peace for us in holding back in our comfortable religion. A disturbed conscience for the fearful is a grace, a gift of God, that prods one in to the way of intimacy with God. Our good Father cannot allow us to have the "peace which passeth all understanding", while being afraid to let God mold us in to His image and likeness. We cannot have a fear of sainthood and intimacy with God. We must trust that as crazy it sounds, being a saint makes you happy! Supernatural sanctity is the only reason for why Christ would come and die. God is drawing us to become Who He is. He wants us to be in a process of deification already, not later, now. The saints are those who realize this and cooperate with a joy that befuddles the faithless and encourages the fearful. The enemy of the faith will do anything to interrupt this process of forming sons and daughters of the Father.  Our Lady said to St. Elizabeth in the Magnificat, that "he that is mighty, hath done great things to me." This is God's plan for every living soul, but not of course, without our knowledgeable free will decision. "Be it done unto me according to thy word", said our Blessed Mother when she was asked her consent before becoming the Mother of God. What a beautiful example of fearless faith. May we recognize when we lack supernatural peace in the soul, it is probably because we need more faith, or we need to overcome our fear of allowing Him that is mighty, to do great things to us. It is possible that I have made unwarranted assumptions about the book. I take the liberty of such assumption because I think you were asking us to speculate about what it might teach or ignore. Come back with a book report when you are finished Valentinus, and let us know. God bless, Rory PS: I went back to look at the opening post and note that you asked if anyone else had read the book. Obviously, I didn't even read what you wrote, let alone the book, and made my own assumptions. My apologies for that.

Edited July 4, 2019 by 3DOP

[smac97]

On 7/4/2019 at 8:43 AM, pogi said:

I don’t think the premise is to not follow the commandments,  rather it is to “trust in Christ” and follow him with an open heart to the best of our ability and understanding with a willingness to bend and stretch our understanding as guided by him.

Isn't Enns saying that we should trust in Christ an expression of orthodoxy as much as orthopraxy? If not more so?

Edited July 5, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I was clear that I had not read it either. I also asked if anyone else had read it. Lacking intent to read something after given only a brief overview and negatively criticizing it is very odd.

If you are surprised at me being odd after all the time we have spent here and interacted I am not sure what to tell you.

[Damien the Leper]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So if there is only one safe or effective way to your destination and I know it, you will detest me if I tell you? That sounds like a recipe for a lifetime of disaster.

Poor hypothetical because you don't know it.

[Damien the Leper]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Isn’t this just an assertion that the one way that is better is not to assert any as better?

No one way is better.

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think it’s reasonable. 

Using your idea of what is arrogant, I could say that you are arrogant for asserting that you know that no way is better or more fruitful than another.  I wouldn’t say that because I don’t believe it but I could if I chose to mimic your example of what arrogance is.

 

It's a level playing field and no single way has any advantage over the others. All ways are on equal footing. 

[Damien the Leper]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I prefer strawberry.

I like strawberries with lemon zest and caramel. 

[Damien the Leper]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Valentinus,

I am unfamiliar with the book as are most of us apparently, including you, except for the back cover.  .

I hold that Christian doctrine should precede Christian practice. Think about what we are asked to do. Here is just one example out of many practical exhortations in the New Testament for total abandonment of our wills and our intellects, or even our bodies to Someone else.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service." (Rom. 12:2)

Reasonable service? Reasonable service? Is this going to be practical for one who hasn't been taught and accepted the first eleven chapters of Romans yet?

There is a pattern in St. Paul's letter to the Romans that is also used in others of his letters. Doctrine Before Practice. He spends the first eleven chapters of Romans expounding on sundry doctrines and early controversies about the faith. In ch. 11, he concludes his doctrinal lessons with a reminder of God's mercy and justice as it relates to Jew and Gentile making it clear that we can forfeit the privileges of being allowed to say "Abba, Father"(ch. 8).  Finally, the Apostle climbs the summit of possible knowledge of the interior life of Him whose teaching he was revealing. Then Paul asks us to revel with him in the great mystery of God:

"O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?" It is not until Chapter 12 that St. Paul shows us to what all this sublime teaching leads. It means that Someone has the right to gain from us an offering of our bodies, as a living sacrifice! Can you imagine the audacity of starting out with the practical side of Christianity before familiarity with why or how or Who? We cannot put such radical practical principles in to practice without a deep and rooted knowledge of how and why we are obliged to do so. Also, how and why it is the only way to happiness. It is what we are made for.  ---------------------------------------- Valentinus, I do not wish to be dismissive of the ideas in this book considering I have not even read it. I am uncomfortable with the title. It seems like it might fail to consider the gentlest, wisest, and joyful of Christian saints who the received the Sacred Traditions which Catholics believe to have been revealed by the Apostles. I will go a short distance, and probably agree with him if he says that one can mistakenly take comfort in apparently believing the right teaching, without putting it in to practice. But St. James assures us that faith without the works, ("taking up your Cross") is dead already. What I fear is that the author is going to ignore the saints. On the practical level, it seems like this idea of perceiving certainty in doctrine as almost a sin, could lead one away from necessary teachings about the need to be united in the communion of saints without which, it is impossible to reach our full potential in Jesus Christ. I don't want to compare the one with dead faith (correct doctrine/no practice) with the one who does his best to find spiritual consolation while despairing of finding doctrinal truth. I think we are supposed to desire to ascend to heights of sanctity that amazes the world and enkindles the fire of the Holy Ghost in those with whom it comes in to contact. I do not believe that with a true and deep interior life, anyone can perceive and aspire to the radical renouncement that God asks of us, trusting in His good will, without also receiving greater clarity and certainty about the teachings that were revealed by the Apostles. Without the lives of the Catholic Saints, I might be drawn to reconsider the obligation to identify Christ's true church, while submitting my judgment to her teaching. Of course "dead faith boy" shouldn't be emulated. Why bring up that straw man as an option? Everybody knows that isn't right. What about that group who are ignored to the detriment of souls? The saints. Their lives are so hard to believe that most Christians don't have enough faith to believe in their acts, let alone the miracles that sometimes give confirmation that the act is of God. Those of us who do believe have to overcome a certain fear. There is no peace for us in holding back in our comfortable religion. A disturbed conscience for the fearful is a grace, a gift of God, that prods one in to the way of intimacy with God. Our good Father cannot allow us to have the "peace which passeth all understanding", while being afraid to let God mold us in to His image and likeness. We cannot have a fear of sainthood and intimacy with God. We must trust that as crazy it sounds, being a saint makes you happy! Supernatural sanctity is the only reason for why Christ would come and die. God is drawing us to become Who He is. He wants us to be in a process of deification already, not later, now. The saints are those who realize this and cooperate with a joy that befuddles the faithless and encourages the fearful. The enemy of the faith will do anything to interrupt this process of forming sons and daughters of the Father.  Our Lady said to St. Elizabeth in the Magnificat, that "he that is mighty, hath done great things to me." This is God's plan for every living soul, but not of course, without our knowledgeable free will decision. "Be it done unto me according to thy word", said our Blessed Mother when she was asked her consent before becoming the Mother of God. What a beautiful example of fearless faith. May we recognize when we lack supernatural peace in the soul, it is probably because we need more faith, or we need to overcome our fear of allowing Him that is mighty, to do great things to us. It is possible that I have made unwarranted assumptions about the book. I take the liberty of such assumption because I think you were asking us to speculate about what it might teach or ignore. Come back with a book report when you are finished Valentinus, and let us know. God bless, Rory PS: I went back to look at the opening post and note that you asked if anyone else had read the book. Obviously, I didn't even read what you wrote, let alone the book, and made my own assumptions. My apologies for that.

No problem. I always enjoy hearing your perspective. It is refreshing. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you are surprised at me being odd after all the time we have spent here and interacted I am not sure what to tell you.

True. Your oddness is what endears me. Your comedic snark has often lightened my day when I needed it.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

It's a level playing field and no single way has any advantage over the others. All ways are on equal footing. 

Yes, I know that's your belief.

But that just seems like your way of saying that you believe that a whole bunch of people are wrong about their spiritual beliefs and you (and others) are right.  How are you not being arrogant but Christians believing that a whole bunch of people are wrong and they are right is?  (Sincere question.  I'm not following your reasoning on this.)

[Hamba Tuhan]

58 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Poor hypothetical because you don't know it.

I don't know what exactly?

59 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No one way is better.

Clearly, your way is better. You've already told us you detest people who don't accept the superiority of your way.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

No one way is better.

And you know this for certain how?

I thought the sin was certainty?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I like strawberries with lemon zest and caramel. 

Oh man that's not even fair.

 

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I know that's your belief.

But that just seems like your way of saying that you believe that a whole bunch of people are wrong about their spiritual beliefs and you (and others) are right.  How are you not being arrogant but Christians believing that a whole bunch of people are wrong and they are right is?  (Sincere question.  I'm not following your reasoning on this.)

Think of the situation from an egalitarian and pluralistic perspective. My faith beliefs are no more better or lucrative than any others. The mental gymnastics of religious superiority is staggering.