Thanks for this post, Scot. And for the resources.
“Oh Dogma! Oh Dogma! How dost thy trample under foot love, truth, conscience, justice!”
Indeed.

Scot,
You’ve got two questions – why is there so little room for questions and exploration? Because the answers are known and the boundaries defended — there is little appreciation for the real issues and the depth of the questions. Blogs and the internet are reshaping the discussion for both good and ill. On the internet one can explore issues, finding both information and conversation; but one can also find advocates, gatherings of those who confirm and reinforce doubt. There is also too little monitoring – so conversation is rare, and “shouting down” disagreement abounds online.

Wow – the biggest question in my mind is the last – Are Christians demonstrably different? Does faith and the indwelling Spirit make a difference?
Sometimes yes it seems so, sometimes not. Tracing the faith through history it is hard to see this difference. But I think that this is because history as we have it is dominated by disagreements and by power struggles, i.e. this is what has been documented and left a permanent written record. We do not see the impact in the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. I think that there is strong evidence that the gospel took off in the Roman world because it did make a difference in the lives of Christians.
When Christianity is the official religion the impact is harder to see – because many at all levels who claim to be Christian, from common man to church leaders – are not actually committed to the way of Christ.

I don’t think the internet has substantially changed the problem. Most people want to be liked and often honest questions go against what is fashionable. And to be out of fashion is a fate worse than death to most. Even those who think they’re cutting against the tide usually do it among a crowd that thinks it is fashionable to do that.
It’s not just a phenomenon with orthodox or evangelicals, it is with everybody.

Ok, this is my third time trying to get this through #$$#@! Beliefnet.
Adam (#4), please don’t patronize people with real questions by suggesting they are just following fashion.
Internet: good in that it lets people connect with others and forces churches to be more responsive (people can easily get information elsewhere). Bad in that it allows people to spend hours obsessively surfing skeptical and fundamentalist sites, reinforcing their worst fears.

#5 dopderbeck
Come again? I don’t see how I’m patronizing. I’m just saying that it is hard to ask honest questions because of the disapproval you can often receive.

Adam,
It is hard to ask honest questions in the face of disapproval and the potential for ostracism and derision. However, you suggested that the reason was a desire to be “fashionable” or to remain in fashion with a crowd – and this has a very patronizing connotation.

RJS and dopderbeck,
I think Adam was saying that people avoid honest questions because it’s fashionable. He’s not being patronizing. He seems to be talking about groupthink or communities where debate is discouraged. Read his comment again.

I have seen this same experience often in my evangelical world. Really bright people pick up the disconnects around election and God’s love and God’s justice. I have a nephew who jumped the evangelical ship due to social justice and the love of God questions. I think many persons intuitively know that Jesus presents a different picture of God.

1. Why is there so little room for questions and explorations among the orthodox? Among evangelicals?
Evangelicalism has historically been a populist movement, not an intellectually rigorous one. (That may or may not be changing, depending on who one asks.)
For example, people getting saved out of some gutter of their own making want safe boundaries with dependable structures upon which to build their lives. Some grow out of that need; others don’t. On a larger scale, many see themselves as guardians of the faith in light of biblical warnings of apostacy in the end times. They’re afraid of tampering with the content of belief for this reason, not realizing it has always been dynamic.
2. What do you think can be done about this? Being a person who makes room for question within our own sphere of influence, particularly with young people.
I can honestly say my family and I have seen and suffered the worst of what the evangelical/orthodox culture has to offer(along with the best) and it is no surprise that neither of my sons was/is a churchgoer.
However, neither of them ever disavowed their faith, I think because we affirmed the veracity of their experiences and made/make room for questions.
Now, I do not believe an individual faith, disconnected from community can ultimately be a flourishing one, and, forgive me, but I don’t think the current flock of innovators have all the answers,but rather are offering a mash-up of nothing new under the sun. So, in the meantime, I’d say we do the best we can with what forms we have.
3.Do you think blogs and the internet are reshaping this problem?
Yes, because it is so much easier to discover that one is not alone with their questions. Will the internet help solve the problem? I’m not so sure. When I walk back into my little corner of the evangelical world after exploring internet discussions of theological matters, many of the people I interact with have no awareness whatsoever of those discussions.

Adam @ 4, “Most people want to be liked and often honest questions go against what is fashionable.”
He’s not saying skeptics are trying to be fashionable. He’s saying people who refuse to question are.

Why is there so little room for exploration and discussion? It is not that there is little room, but that it takes great energy and trust. Both are generally in short supply in these days.
Do innovations in communications (like blogs and the Internet) help? On the whole, probably not. The access to more information and discussion partners creates as much confusion as it does clarity. I personally prefer real face-to-face conversation to the proxied communications over a computer network… which is why I do not comment here often.
Are Christians different? Yes and no. As individuals, we are subject to all the same temptations and failings as the rest of the world. The outcomes of our lives may not be that different, but the understanding is. I like to believe and I do hope that my life is truly honoring God, but it is only because he has opened my eyes to see that way and empowered me to live that way.
Blessings,
JKG

cas @ 10,
“I don’t think the current flock of innovators have all the answers,but rather are offering a mash-up of nothing new under the sun”
Well, of course they don’t and of course they are. I don’t know anyone who would claim otherwise.

Why is there so little room for questions? Perhaps…because it is not about in whom we place our trust, but in what system we place our trust…and because that faithing system becomes who we are. Boundaries and answers (RJS) are about who we are, our identity, how we see ourselves. There isn’t room for others in our systems…thus the “hypocrisy” between what we say and what we do. Spirituality seems to be the comforting answer for some as it encompasses a nebulous mass of acceptance, which sounds good rationally. The internet and blogs cannot for the most part do much accept raise awareness and raise conflict. Only real relationships worked out in the spirit of grace of Christ (the only concrete, comprehensive, REAL example humankind has had)will make a difference. And that starts right where we are, wherever that is.

#7 RJS
Sorry, no, I didn’t. I said that often when people go against the tide they do it in an environment that makes it easier to ask difficult questions.

I think we forget we are saved through faith in Christ… so many add, correct doctrine (at least correct in their opinion) to the criteria for salvation. Then we our particular version of doctrine paramount.
while valid theology is very important, i do not think knowing and signing up to correct doctrinal positions is the means of salvation. it is by the spirit not works and even having our theology ducks in a row, will not save us.

Travis, Sorry if I touched a nerve, but I hear and read plenty that sounds as if people don’t recognize that they are really not saying anything new. Now ask me for an example and I’ll chicken out rather than offer one. Still, that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate innovation. I just find some it tiresome when it is communicated within an endless critique of the faith that changed my life and that I see quietly changing lives every day of the week—and that faith was and is delivered in an evangelical wrapper.

A quote from D. Willard that I think addresses these problems, problems that stem from a failure to understand the task of being and making disciples of Jesus:
“A fundamental mistake of the conservative side of the American church today, and much of the Western church, is that it takes as its basic goal to get as many people as possible ready to die and go to heaven. It aims to get people into heaven rather than to get heaven into people. This of course requires that these people, who are going to be “in,” must be right on what is basic. You can’t really quarrel with that. But it turns out that to be right on “what is basic” is to be right in terms of the particular church vessel or tradition in question, not in terms of Christlikeness.”

I don’t know to what degree blogging is a techo available modality that fills the hole that has been created by a lack of deeper connection with those live, or, is it creating the hole by leading us away from a deeper experience and connection with each other.
I do feel that “2 or 3 gathering together” with Christ in our midst is possible in blogworld. But I fear the depth of these encounters do not allow for the richer depths of incarnational presence. Jesus can be present to us anywhere we are but as human beings, we need eyes, ears, touch, and smell to deepen our connection of one another. They say 80% of communication is body language and non verbal. If it is even near this, we obviously miss most of the other in the blogosphere.

I believe that much derision and division of faith happens when people get caught up in one specific doctrine of dogma and are unwilling or unbending in their own to have a conversation. These things get in the way of truly being a follower of Christ. I am appreciative of the ALPHA movement that has attempted to strip away the dogma of Christian faith and to teach on the basics while still respecting the various expressions of Christian faith that exist.
I don’t believe that evangelicals are the only guilty parties in becoming caught up in dogmatic belief – Jesus called the Pharisees out on this also. When we begin to place anything above Jesus or as a “more suitable act of faith” it is a danger for everyone. Good things can become hindrances even if the initial intent is for God if they become necessary acts of righteousness – when it becomes necessary it becomes a self-righteous act, i.e. “look at me and all the good I’m doing, yay Jesus!”
The focus needs to be continually returned to Christ and in my reading of the New Testament he welcomed questions with open arms. Questions connote searching because you only seek out answers to things that matter to you and hold some level of importance. Jesus told us to have faith like a child, what is more child-like than asking questions?

As for the question as to what difference Jesus makes in spirituality (RJS #3, I suggest reading Henri Nouwen et. al. on Compassion: A Reflection on the Christian Life. Pay attention to the Epilogue and the story of the drawings that illustrate the book. Here we see that Jesus as God with us literally makes all the difference,and not from some “Jesus is the only way” kind of argument.
As to the larger theme of Mr. Newman’s life, this is a great book for artists too.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

It seems to me that “T” and his quote from D. Willard have captured the nub of the issue. That and Joanne’s comment “I think we forget we are saved through faith in Christ… so many add, correct doctrine (at least correct in their opinion) to the criteria for salvation.”
Indeed there needs to be a fleshing out of faith. The ol’ “faith without works is dead” concept. However, often that idea of “works” becomes belief in a specific formula of doctrine not in feeding the poor, caring for the widows, helping those who are losing their homes, etc.
Having spent years teaching in a variety of churches, it has amazed me how often people say, “you really make me think!” It seems that comment is indicative of what is lacking in most Christian circles today, the ability to think, discuss, and formulate ideas. As I heard one of our pastors say regarding his interpretation of the Book of Revelation and another person’s opinion – “I did not want to discuss it with him, my mind was made up.” THAT attitude my friends is what stifles growth and,in some respects, leads people to walk away from the shallowness of it all.
Forums like this blog and others on the internet help spawn critical and constructive thinking. Then again, there are others that simply provide a place to rant.

cas @ 17,
And I’m sorry if I snapped back too quickly. But in my experience, “innovators” (not sure of who specifically you’re talking about, so maybe that’s the problem) are not about novelty. In many cases it’s about a return to ancient traditions and practices, in contrast to much more recent evangelical ones. It’s trying to marry the best of the evangelical tradition to the rest of the Church. And sometimes that comes with an angry, deconstructive stage (I’ll admit going through that myself), but it usually blossoms into a mature and thoughtful faith that doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think some of the critique that bothers you is just the zeal of the convert; many evangelical ex-Catholics are hardest on the Roman Catholic church, and many of us born-and-bred (and born again) post-evangelical emergent-whatevers are hardest on evangelicalism.

Travis,
I agree with you completely on all points, and giving that I’m unwilling to state who I have in mind, well, that’s a discussion ender. Let’s just say those who make a career of deconstruction.
blessings to you~

“Why is there so little room for questions and explorations among the orthodox? Among evangelicals? What do you think can be done about this?”
1. Don’t jump to conclusions when you hear something that you don’t fully understand or agree with.
2. Don’t attack the motives of the person delivering the message.
3. Apologize if you happen to do the first two.
(see previous comments)

BTW, thanks Travis for coming to my defense.

Adam,
One of the biggest drawbacks of the internet and an internet conversation is that it is very easy to misinterpret intent. There is no nuance possible (body language).
I actually didn’t misinterpret your statement – I was trying to explain that using expressions such as And to be out of fashion is a fate worse than death to most. would come across as patronizing to many who have struggled with these questions.
Clearly I didn’t communicate as well as I could have and wish I had either – as you and Travis both felt I attacked you.

Anytime.

This is becoming longer than I intended, though I haven’t commented at length here for a while, so maybe I’m making up for that… Forgive my many words.
It’s interesting to me that Newman in his idealism was seeking a return to the pure Christianity of “the New Testament church”. This was a phrase that was bandied about quite frequently among those of us who lived through the Jesus Movement; this is what we were looking for, too. It was the idealistic ’60s/’70s. I know that the intentions behind that seeking are good ones…but we Baby Boomers didn’t find “the New Testament church” we were looking for- or if we thought we did, disillusionment crept in, in one form or another- to be traced, I believe, to elevation of other things (including dogma) over love.
Now to the questions. (Here’s a question…Why won’t Beliefnet let you see the post and all the comments at the same time??!?) Why so little room for questions? Among E’icals, I think it is because of fear that if one questions scripture then one doesn’t believe scripture (but what is usually meant is Our Definitive Interpretation Of The Bible) and therefore one’s salvation is in jeopardy. I think this is the direct result of the notion of inerrancy. Among RCs and EOs, the appeal is to Tradition (and they each understand T. differently), but the outcome is the same: the danger, in finding the answers outside of the Church, of losing one’s salvation.
What can be done? Be honest. I think that’s the single thing that drew so many people to Francis Schaeffer in the heyday of L’Abri. If we don’t know, let’s say we don’t know or understand, without constant appeals to God’s inscrutability. Of course we can’t know everything about God, but to make this the repeated excuse for avoiding hard questions is, frankly, disrespectful of the person asking. Some groups do this better than others.
Is the internet reshaping things? Of course, if for no other reason than the *speed* of communication and access to information. It would have taken me years longer to find the path I am on now, had it not been for the ‘net. Of course, one has to discern the quality of the sources on the ‘net, but that has always been the case; not every print source has been reliable, either.
Does Jesus factor in? For a Christian, he should be the center. But it always comes down to meaning: what is the meaning of who he was and what he did? Various groups give different answers. I think it has always been so. Noel Paul Stookey wrote a wonderful song lyric: “If you get the message, you might refuse it- but if you get the meaning, hey don’t ever lose it… if you get the meaning, oh, of it all..”
Should Christians be demonstrably better (by that I think you mean more virtuous)? This has been one of the questions that drove my Big Theological Re-Think. I think most people think they should be. I’m not so sure how much this evaluation is due to the claims of Christians/Christianity and how much is due to our expectation and idealization, given where we are downstream from the Enlightenment, of Progress. Virtue is good, no matter who it is that is doing virtuous things. But it is plainly observable that people of different faiths or no faith can do virtuous things, and I think it’s safe to say that everyone has mixed motives.
I do know that R. Stark thinks the two things that fueled the spread of Christianity in its first couple of centuries were a)sexual continence and b)taking care of people who were not their kin (nursing, burying, raising abandoned children, caring for the poor, etc.) These caused the people around them to ask themselves, “Why are Christians doing these things -which simply make no sense to us- so consistently?” I think today we Christians have a mixed scorecard, even if evaluating only on these two things, but none of us sees the whole picture. I’m glad God is the one who judges, and that mercy triumphs.
Again, it all comes around again to Meaning: What is the meaning of who Jesus was and what he did?
Dana

Why is there little room for questioning in many faith communities? This may seem simplistic, but the more conversations I have, the more I think it explains a lot: The primary things many people are looking for in Christianity is safety, security and comfort. Given that, they need bright lines, clearly drawn. Questioning undercuts everything that they need and want most.

This is surely a tragedy. One has to have somewhere in their believing community, those who believe in and practice free thinking within the commitment to God and Scripture. If you don’t have that, you can either end up giving up and living just a kind of dead faith, not that relevant to the real world in which you live. Or you might just jump ship, like Newman did.
I don’t know about the questions. I just don’t know. And God sees more than anyone can see; there is “sin” to be found everywhere.
Part of the problem might be the stark pictures drawn by Christians. The truth sometimes is not as bold in appearance, as that.

The problem with evangelicalism is two fold:
(1) It is a tragic reduction of the Christian faith to the most bare-bones soul concerns (hardly an incarnational or kingdom worldview)
(2) It constantly teeters on the edge of being an endtimes cult
So, under problem No.1 we could list all the ways in which evangelicalism doesn’t concern itself with most of life on earth as humans experience it every day. Evangelicalism has had little to say about the Church’s mission to transform everything (society, law, arts, entertainment, government, business, etc.) to reflect the ethics and light of Heaven. This leaves evangelicals excited about their conversion but lost on what to do with rest of their lives.
Under problem No.2 we could list all the ways that a short-term outlook (the end times outlook) destroys all ability to plan and build for a long-term future. If “the bible says” the world’s going to end any moment, then what’s the point talking about Christianity’s mission/plan for 20 years 60 years even 200 years? What’s the point in mapping out a career that can bring God’s ethics into the workplace or into the arts? What’s the point in talking about transforming work, society, law, education, etc. to reflect Christ and heaven when time’s up and the “prophetic inevitability of things growing worse” can’t be changed?
These problems are intrinsic to evangelicalism–i.e., they are systematic and woven into the fabric of the movement–and aren’t likely to be changeable. Therefore, educated and informed evangelicals will either have to (a) leave the evangelical faith altogether when they face its limits or (b) convert to Eastern or Western Catholicism, which don’t have these issues but do have a shared theological core with evangelical doctrine.