The Separation of Jesus and Any Definite Conclusion
Kent B. True

It's the latest and greatest fad among Christians:  distancing the Christian faith from any firm conclusion about anything.  I suppose if we say that everyone is wrong, then at least they will all be equally angry with us!

I can understand the tendency to want to do this, at least to a certain extent.  But that tendency has gone much too far.  In fact, it has even gotten silly at times.  One of those times is illustrated below.  Kent will comment like this in the article reproduced in part below from the Christian Standard, January 3, 2007.

And So It Goes
Paul S. Williams
"A Place on the Dial"
 

I think Georgetown University linguist Deborah Tannen is correct. She believes America has created an “argument culture.” Whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, strong opinions abound—“You’re stupid.” “No, you’re stupid.” It is all quite uplifting.

Of course, Paul, not all "strong opinions" are supported only with "you're stupid."  I don't always agree with Rush Limbaugh, for example, but if you think his "strong opinions" are always just "you're stupid" then you surely have not listened to Rush much.

Jesus never could have his own talk show. National advertisers would not go within a million miles of him. Even the religious radio stations would stay away. Jesus is way too controversial for their tastes. Better stick with James Dobson.

Again, Paul, it's very hip of you to put down a conservative like Dobson.  Do you actually listen to him either?  Exactly where, in the social comment category, is he at odds with Jesus?  And if you haven't noticed, he doesn't have national advertisers either, if that is indeed the virtue you seem to think it is.

Jesus couldn’t get an FCC license for his own station either. He’s too politically incorrect for today’s American sensibilities. He would be relegated to operate some pirate radio station from a leaky ship off the coast of Florida.

Another somewhat stupid comment.  I have heard the gospel preached on mainstream radio stations.  Do you even listen to the radio, Paul?  Try something other than PBS and Fox.

Why would Jesus have all this difficulty? Because he does not fit into anyone’s camp. There is no place for him in an “argument culture.” Jesus is not a Democrat. He is not a Republican. Jesus is not a conservative, or a liberal, or a capitalist, or a socialist. Jesus is utterly confounding, and Americans do not like to be confounded. I had a history professor in college who called all of this, “Hardening of the categories.”

The idea that the teaching of Jesus (which, remember, includes the teaching of the Apostles) does not lead to any definite conclusions borders on the idiotic.  The last time I read the gospels, Jesus was often involved in disputes.  In fact, He seemed to create an "argument culture" wherever He went.  Have you read the gospels, Paul?  How much stronger and provocative could claims be than those that came from Jesus?

The truth is hard to tell, and it should be treated that way. I sometimes think I should begin all of my sermons with a disclaimer: “This is what I know with the resources available to me at the present time. It is quite possible that tomorrow life will knock me up the side of the head and teach me something quite different.” When I look back at some of my old sermons, a disclaimer would have been helpful.

So Paul, if you are all that unsure of yourself and especially of the Christian faith, perhaps you shouldn't be taking up space on the back page of the Christian Standard every week.  While a degree of epistemological humility is good, the attempt to use it as a hiding place is not.  And perhaps I wouldn't be so harsh about this, except for what is coming up next . . .

I take great comfort in the fact that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I take satisfaction in Jesus’ words that Scripture “cannot be broken,” though I’m not exactly sure what that means. I do know where I want to land on the dial. I want to tune in to Jesus, pure and simple. Or maybe I should just say “pure.”

Paul takes satisfaction in Jesus' words that Scripture "cannot be broken," though he's not exactly sure what that means.  Wait - he's what?  He's not exactly sure what that means?!?  Did I read that rightly?  Paul is not sure what it means when Jesus says that scripture cannot be broken?  How can Paul take "satisfaction" in something he claims he doesn't understand?

Talk about trying to hide behind false humility - false hermeneutical humility this time.  What more clear statement of scripture could there be?  If Paul is not sure what that one means, what else in scripture is he unsure of?

Is he unsure of "go and make disciples of all nations"?  How about "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins"?  What, pray tell, is Paul Williams sure of in scripture?

Odd, isn't it, that Paul Williams is fairly sure of things like "American has created an 'argument culture'" and "Jesus never could have his own talk show."  He is sure enough of these things to lecture us about them in the Christian Standard.  But he's not sure what Jesus means when He says, "Scripture cannot be broken."

It is time for Christian writers to stop trying to hide in the shadows of feigned uncertainty.  If you are overwhelmed by uncertainty, please do the rest of us a favor and remain silent.