When does the spirit of inquiry become the spirit of rebellion?

Christianity has a checkered history with respect to how it treats thinkers that challenge the status quo. I cringe when I read parts of that history: for example, that of the medieval-era Catholic church in the few centuries prior to the Reformation. The church did not tolerate dissent or inquiry, or any departure from the established teachings of the magisterium. Most such challenges were met by cruel torture or simply incinerating the 'heretic.'

While we may understand the fountain from which Calvin and other reformers had been drinking (hanging on to the Roman Catholic confusion of the power of the church and the state, something in which the Protestant tradition is still en-mired in places—think of the state churches in England, Scotland, Germany, for example), yet Calvin’s treatment of the heretic Servetus in Geneva is simply inexcusable from the standpoint of the Gospel. Other examples of insupportable early Protestant violence could be cited.

The hounding of the Mormons (much of which was self-inflicted, by the way) in our own country is another unfortunate example of virtually criminal religious intolerance. While we can (and should!) dispute their theology (it is not Christian in any historic understanding of the word), nonetheless, they should be tolerated and, yes, protected, free to pursue their religion. [This paragraph has been editted - my original was just too offensive even to me after a good night's sleep.]

For a shining, pristine example of how NOT to defend the Gospel, just examine the folks from Westboro Baptist Church. I cringe to even use the word, ‘church,’ in that sentence. These folks bear about as much relationship to Christ as does your local telephone pole. I feel like saying, “if you really are Christians, would you just please not tell anybody!” If these folks ever gained civil power, God forbid, we'd be right back to burning dissenters at the stake.

"Chris, you sound mighty intolerant of these various people!" Well, sort of. It's their theology concerning which I am intolerant, not them as people. But let's make a distinction. I firmly believe they have every right to make their pitch in the marketplace of ideas. I want them to have that right! I want them to be able to proselyte, persuade, convince, to their heart's content. And if you or I don't like what they have to say, just walk away and realize that in a free country you're going to be subjected to ideas and speech you don't appreciate. Although let's be clear, the Westboro Wackos should not be free to intrude on funerals; if the courts have defined funerals as public meetings, they need to redefine them, quickly, as private!

Just like these foks with whom I disagree can vociferously attack my beliefs (and I support their right to do so), I can likewise hold theirs up for examination.

Now that we’re done with the Christian mea culpas (and that’s not to dismiss them as illegitimate, but simply to begin advancing my argument), the question remains: for the Christian, when does the spirit of inquiry become the spirit of rebellion? Are there legitimate boundaries to intellectual inquiry, for the self-confessed believer in Christ?

For one who does not confess biblical faith in Christ, it’s a silly, irrelevant question harkening back to the fine Christian tradition of crushing dissent. And, for not a few confessing Christians, it is a dumb question: they would say that it is anti-intellectual and poor stewardship of the Creation Mandate to place any limits on inquiry.

So why am I asking this question in the first place? Because of the folks at Biologos, and because of my former instructor, Pete Enns (see here and here), and because of the revival of “higher” biblical criticism under new names and faces and approaches that is gaining such massive momentum and posing such a threat to the church! Especially to the average believer and seeker!

These scientists and theologians, these men and women, are public figures, culture-formers and trend-setters, not simply private individuals. They purport to be teachers of the ignorant and guides to the blind. Their public statements and positions, therefore, are fair game for critical examination.

So for the next several weeks, that’s what we’ll be doing on the Thoughtspot. Interspersed with silly stupid posts masquerading as humor dealing with what-have-you, self-serving promotions of my book, and general train-of-consciousness rambling, there will be the occasional coherent thought on the question of the spirit of inquiry. I hope you’ll join in the conversation with observations, challenges, or questions, in the comment section.