Certainty a Vice?

Postmodernism has adversely affected every phase of modern religious beliefs and practices. Postmodernism is that approach to moral and spiritual values that denies man's ability to know anything for certain. According to postmodernism, there is no point in debating the existence of God, the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the scriptures, the virgin birth of our Lord, his resurrection and his second coming. Nobody can be certain of any of these ideas. The postmodernists teach that the only reason these religious doctrines are preached is to gain power over the lives of others. But I wonder if they are certain about that or is that a purely emotional response to modern life?

Former Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong lampoons the idea of certainty in religious matters. In his book, Into the Whirlwind: The Future of the Church (Minneapolis: The Seabury Press, 1983), Spong says, "We are thus entering a brand new world where certainty more and more will be seen as a vice rising out of emotional need, and uncertainty will be seen as a virtue possessing integrity and a willingness to risk security in the quest of truth" (p. 26). A number of observations on this excerpt are in order. As you can see without my coaching, the former bishop's view is self-contradictory. Is he certain that "certainty more and more will be seen as a vice rising out of emotional need?" If he is certain, his argument is ridiculous to reasonable people. If he is not certain, there is no point in our paying any attention to what he says.

Seabury Press of Minneapolis published Spong's book. Who were the editors and proofreaders who approved the book? Do they know how to reason about such teachings? Was the publisher so hungry for business that the owners and operators of the publishing business overlooked the contradictions, the unsupported observations and inexcusable errors in Spong's book? As a long-time college professor, I would have flunked a student who made so many blunders in a term paper. In fact, I would have failed my high school students for being so unreasonable and unscholarly.

It bothers me to have to say this about any author, but John Shelby Spong did not believe at the time he wrote the book and does not now believe the many ideas he discusses the book. I am fully aware of the seriousness of that charge, but I shall prove beyond any doubt that Spong did not believe what he wrote. Please remember that he affirmed that "certainty will more and more be seen as a vice rising out of emotional need." Brief excerpts from the book will show how totally inconsistent the former bishop was and is. His latest books show he has not changed his mind since he wrote Into the Whirlwind in 1983. Please listen carefully to these brief excerpts from that book. Incidentally, I am not taking them of context.

Spong writes: "I believe there is an ultimate reality that can only be called God" (p. 6). Is he certain that "an ultimate reality can only be called God?" How can Spong still call himself a Christian and write: "Every assertion that Christianity in any form possesses by divine revelation the ultimate and unchanging truth will have to be abandoned" (p. 14)? Of course, he cannot be absolutely sure of that view. Spong argues that the "purpose for which the church was created is inevitably distorted" (p. 26). Spong condemns certainty as a vice, but he is certain about his own beliefs. The former bishop seems to be pretty certain about some aspects of the New Age Movement, such as, psychic phenomena, clairvoyance and yoga (pp. 59-64).

One of Spong's latest books has the title, Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998). Is he certain that "Christianity must change or die?" In the book, Spong tells of a discussion he had with a Jewish rabbi. The rabbi wanted to know how "the holy other," that is, the Son of God, could become a man. Spong responded: "The Bible never says in a simplistic way that Jesus is God" (p. xi of the Preface). If Spong claims to be certain of that concept, he has refuted his own view that certainty will more and more be seen as a vice. What did our Lord mean when he said to some Jewish leaders: "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58)? If that is not an affirmation of deity, I would not know its significance. The apostle John quoted the Lord's very words: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending"....the One "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8). Was John wrong or is John Shelby Spong wrong?

I have a question for you to consider. How can human beings live with uncertainty about God, his word, his Son and about the other fundamentals of the faith? I have said on this program and say often in gospel meetings: "I do not know how I can handle my Molly's death or my own death if I did not believe what Jesus told Martha: 'I am the resurrection, and the life: he who believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die'" (John 11:25-26). I believe based on "many infallible proofs" that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). Will Spong wish in the final judgment he had had such faith in God's Son?

I shall take time today to review some of Paul's inspired statements about certainty, although he does not use that word. Paul uses words like "confidence," "full assurance," "know, "boldness" and "persuaded." While Paul does not use the word "certainly," Old Testament writers did. As Joshua prepared to lead the Israelites into the land of promise, he told them: "Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations before you" (Josh. 23:13). In the New Testament, Luke, the Greek physician, explained his reason for writing about Christ. "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed" (Lk. 1:3-4). The word "know" in this passage is an intensified form of the word. It means to know fully or completely.

Paul addressed three of his letters to young preachers—two to Timothy and one to Titus. A review of the two letters to Timothy will demonstrate that Paul believed and taught Timothy to believe that he could have certainty— and certainty was not then and is not now a vice. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul affirmed: "For we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers" (1 Tim. 1:8-9). The word "know" in both verses means "I have come to know and I still know; I have full knowledge." Paul was not boasting, but the Holy Spirit had assured him that his knowledge was absolutely true. He had full or complete knowledge of the great truths he was teaching Timothy.

No mortal can know all there is to know. Only God knows all there is to know. But Paul and other Bible writers wanted their readers to know the truth they had to have to become Christians, to live for God and to have the hope of heaven. Paul urged Timothy to pray for all who were in authority so that Christians could lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. He added: "For this good and acceptable in the sight of God and our Savior: who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4). As you can easily discern from this reading, Paul did not accept the rantings and ravings of postmodernists that men cannot know anything. Is there any doubt in your mind that Paul believed men and women were capable of knowing the will of God and had to know it and obey that will to please God?

Paul sometimes used the word "boldness" to show the confidence we must have in receiving the great and precious promises of the gospel. He was not endorsing an arrogant attitude among God's people. He spoke of the confidence deacons could enjoy if they were faithful in discharging their responsibilities. "For they who have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree (or more literally "a good standing"), and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 3:13). The same Greek word is rendered "confidence" in the following passage: "And now, little children, abide in him: that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming" (1 John 2:28).

Paul and Timothy were very close associates in the work of the Lord. When Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy, he told his young friend that he wanted to see him shortly. "But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of the God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Incidentally, the "house of God" was not the church building. Paul was concerned about Timothy's conduct as a Christian, as a member of God's family. That was Paul's reason for telling Timothy to treat the older women as mothers and the younger women as sisters" (1 Tim. 5:2). He charged Timothy: "Keep yourself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22).

I am sure Spong and other postmodernists chafe under Paul's affirmations in all of his writings. Paul never expressed any doubt about the truthfulness of the gospel. He knew God had revealed his will to him. Please listen to these words. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Tim. 3:16). Dr. Hugo McCord translates the expression, "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness," as follows: "Undeniably, the mystery of godliness is great." The term is very similar to these words: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation" (1 Tim. 1:15). In very simple terms, the truth of the gospel is beyond dispute.

Paul was greatly troubled by some of the doctrines being taught in the first century. Two in particular disturbed him—forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from certain kinds of food. He even called them "doctrines of demons." He said concerning the food (the King James Version has "meats"): God created them "to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. 4:3). Is Paul affirming that we can know the truth? You know he is. That means that all postmodernists who deny man's ability to know the truth are way out in left field. And in my judgment, one of them really believes what he so strongly argues. They know we cannot know. That is pure intellectual idiocy.

As in every century since the first, there have always been men who promoted doctrinal error and moral corruption. Paul exhorted: "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine that is according to holiness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof come envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings, and destitute of truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw yourself (1 Tim. 6:3-5). There are several expressions in these verses that deserve an in-depth investigation. Did Paul believe there were "sound words" revealed in the gospel? The word "sound" just means healthy. Are there teachings in the Bible that constitute "sound words?" If there are not, Paul's language is deceptive. He called the "sound words" "the words of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Paul spoke of the "doctrine that is according to holiness." Is there such doctrine? Can we know that doctrine? If it does not exist or we cannot know it, we are miserable indeed. If men do not consent to the sound words and "the doctrine according to holiness," they are proud, knowing nothing. Paul is not arguing that the men cannot know the truth, but they have such hard hearts, they are unwilling to acknowledge the truth. Such people, according to Paul, are destitute of the truth. But if John Shelby Spong were right, it would not make all that much difference if they were destitute of the truth, would it?

Paul has a lengthy discussion of a Christian's relationship to money. He does not teach what the so-called "health and wealth" preachers of our day constantly emphasize. In fact, he teaches the exact opposite. He accused some of believing and teaching that "gain is godliness." Does that sound like some of the prosperity teachers? Paul insisted: "But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out" (1 Tim. 6:5-7). Most manuscripts do not include the word "certain" in this verse, but it is evident Paul is teaching the truth of God on the subject of money. There is not even a question about it.

Paul's second letter to Timothy includes these inspiring and reassuring words: "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1:12). I have already explained the meaning of the Greek word translated "know." It means I have come to know and I still, know. If John Shelby Spong were to translate this verse, it would likely read somewhat as follows: "I have a strong feeling regarding the one I believe, but I could be wrong. I am really not sure." How wonderfully comforting that would be to Christians in every age!

Martin Luther, the German reformer, objected to some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. He prepared a list of his beliefs and nailed them to the door of the meetinghouse in Wittenberg, Germany. His famous words were: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise." Several years ago I saw a cartoon in the Evangelical journal, "Christianity Today." The cartoon showed a preacher standing in the pulpit and saying, "Here I stand, I think, but I could be wrong." Tragically, that is the attitude of many religious leaders in our day.

Two men of Paul's acquaintance—Hymanaeus and Philetus—had erred concerning the truth, "saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim. 2:17-18). Is a future resurrection an absolute truth or is it only a dream? The teaching of these two men had overthrown the faith of some. Paul argued: "Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure, having the seal, The Lord knows them who are his. And, Let every one who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim. 2:19). Was Paul absolutely certain that the "foundation of God stands sure?" John Shelby Spong and other postmodernists are not, but Paul was. Which will you accept— the one who denies that we can be certain about anything or the one whom the Holy Spirit guided to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? As for me and my house, we will devote our lives to obeying the truth revealed in God's holy word.

There has never been a time in the history of Christianity when false teachers did not constitute a threat to the Lord's church. Paul warned Timothy: "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome; but gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves; if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:23-25). If we know the questions that engender strife, does that mean we can know the questions that do not? Was Paul wrong in arguing that we can and should acknowledge the truth? If we cannot know the truth, how are we going to separate the truth from error—if indeed that can be done? Every Bible writer knew human beings were capable of distinguishing the truth from error, but John Shelby Spong does not know or does not care.

Paul begins 2 Timothy 3 by urging his young friend and brother: "This know" (2 Tim. 3:1). Paul provides a list of serious problems that would arise during "the last days," that is, in the Christian era. Could Timothy actually know what would occur? Can we know? We can know if we have the wisdom and humility to accept the truth that the Holy Spirit provided through his great servant. Paul accused some—namely Jannes and Jambres—of ever learning and never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7-8). Were Jannes and Jambres who withstood Moses all that different from most postmodernists of our day? Those two men resisted to the truth. Modernists, postmodernists and many religious teachers of our day oppose and even ridicule the truth.

Timothy, unlike Jannes and Jambres, closely followed Paul's doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions and afflictions (2 Tim. 3:10-11). Please listen to Paul's inspiring words to Timothy: "But continue in the things that you have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom you have learned them; and that from a child you have known the holy scriptures that are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14-15). The holy scriptures make a man of God mature. They completely furnish him unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Can we be certain of that truth? Absolutely!

I close today with these wonderful words. "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1:12).

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334