Page 3 – The Predicament of Belief
Chapter 7 presents six “degrees” of rationality regarding religious belief. Although the Christian claims do not attain the highest degrees of certainty (levels 1-2), they fall on the spectrum of belief from “rationally permissible” to useful metaphors (levels 3-6) – and still illicit commitment to guide one’s life. Chapter 8 concludes the book with practical reflections on the implications of “Christian minimalism” for religious communities and churches. The authors advocate something akin to the so-called “emergent churches,” places where there is no need for formal or confessional allegiance, assent to specific doctrine, or a high degree of belief in certain (especially traditional) interpretations of Jesus’ significance. The only thing necessary is that all agree on “the Christian proposition”: that “the infinite grace and compassion of the UR itself were present, and in some sense continue to be present, in a particular human being, namely, Jesus of Nazareth” (146).
Clayton and Knapp claim to offer a “philosophical defense of the faith” (175 n.10), yet one wonders if the “faith” they set out to defend is the Christian faith at all. This is not just because the authors advocate a non-physical resurrection, an “adoptionist” Christology, something other than the orthodox Trinity, or because they themselves admit that their view differs in both the content and manner of belief (148 – what’s left?). Their entire project co-opts and inverts the grammar of belief/faith itself by treating it as if it means the same kind of thing to believe in the laws of physics and to believe in the resurrection of Christ (even if in differing degrees). They largely ignore what theologians themselves have said about the nature of faith, that belief in God and belief in other things are as fundamentally different as God is from creation (e.g. Anselm, Proslogion 2-4). For example, a major assumption of their argument is that the scientific and metaphysical arguments about the cause and nature of the universe (MPT) are more certain than the later, more particular, claims about Christ, which are far less rationally certain (118-27). Christians have largely thought precisely the opposite: it is our faith in God’s revelation through Christ – especially in his bodily resurrection – that alone is certain, and the more speculative metaphysical arguments that are less certain and must be inferred (e.g. Heb. 11.1f.). Indeed, if Michael J. Buckley, S.J., is correct that the origins of modern atheism arose from belief in God being justified as the result of an inference deduced rather than a presence known (Denying and Disclosing God), then the project here attempted by the authors is yet another iteration of a philosophical process that will likely lead not to Christian minimalism, but atheism. The “predicament of belief” turns out to be a predicament of a kind of belief that is, on many theological accounts, not really Christian in the first place.
C. Christopher Smith is the founding editor of The Englewood Review of Books. He is also author of a number of books, including most recently How the Body of Christ Talks: Recovering the Practice of Conversation in the Church (Brazos Press, 2019). Connect with him online at: C-Christopher-Smith.com
 Reading for the Common Good From ERB Editor Christopher Smith "This book will inspire, motivate and challenge anyone who cares a whit about the written word, the world of ideas, the shape of our communities and the life of the church." -Karen Swallow Prior Enter your email below to sign up for our weekly newsletter & download your FREE copy of this ebook! |
Understanding Christian Nationalism [A Reading Guide] |
 Most Anticipated Books of the Fall for Christian Readers!
|
 Hilarious One-Star Customer Reviews of Bibles |
