The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires Our Trust More Than Our "Correct" Beliefs

by Peter Enns

The controversial evangelical Bible scholar and author of The Bible Tells Me So explains how Christians mistake “certainty” and “correct belief” for faith when what God really desires is trust and intimacy.

With compelling and often humorous stories from his own life, Bible scholar Peter Enns offers a fresh look at how Christian life truly works, answering questions that cannot be addressed by the idealized traditional doctrine of “once for all delivered to the saints.” Enns offers a model of vibrant faith that views skepticism not as a loss of belief, but as an opportunity to deepen religious conviction with courage and confidence. This is not just an intellectual conviction, he contends, but a more profound kind of knowing that only true faith can provide.

Combining Enn’s reflections of his own spiritual journey with an examination of Scripture, The Sin of Certainty models an acceptance of mystery and paradox that all believers can follow and why God prefers this path because it is only this way by which we can become mature disciples who truly trust God. It gives Christians who have known only the demand for certainty permission to view faith on their own flawed, uncertain, yet heartfelt, terms.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Spirituality

230 pages, Paperback

First published February 2, 2016

About the author

Peter Enns is Abram S. Clemens Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania. He has taught courses at several other institutions including Harvard University, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Princeton Theological Seminary. Enns is a frequent contributor to journals and encyclopedias and is the author of several books, including Inspiration and Incarnation, The Evolution of Adam, and The Bible Tells Me So.

Reviews

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is indeed the most useless piece of Liberal/emotional theological Crap I have ever been submerged in. This book actually caused me to quit my church (of 21 years - Bye bye Wesleyan Methodist theology. Nice people, bad-lazy beliefs. Moving on was inevitable, just needed ONE MORE damning great reason) because of a recurring guest speaker who thinks fondly of this moron. I don't go to church for Uncertainty about life, the universe, and everything. That's what Universities/Colleges are for.

Okay then. This is going to be long and thorough. AND nasty! But the truth of God's Word is at the very heart of this criticism.

Quote from Goodreads title:
"...how Christians mistake “certainty” and “correct belief” for faith when what God really desires is trust and intimacy."
Or the book title itself:
"The Sin of Certainty - Why God desires our trust more than our Correct beliefs"

So, as I read this book I was looking for one Major thing: Which GOD? If we are going to trust someone or something - then we should at least know a fact or two about "IT" (or it's character, or history, or intent, or future). We also need to know what SIN is? I searched every page for a fact or two about Peter Enns deity - or Jesus? And I was especially interested in how Peter KNEW this fact?. Since this whole book is Peter's truth claim: I wanted to know how he claims to have that truth? What is his core foundation for his Christianity? Is that too much to ask? Apparently.

I've been putting off doing this review for almost a year. This is a huge issue of Biblical proportions (for those who Trust the Bible to be God's Word, and for all the clueless Goodreads folk who dared to give this book more than 1 star) and I wanted to make sure it wasn't just an emotional rant. It's not - I've read 3 of Peter Enns books (and numerous other liberal theologians), and spent the last year chatting with liberal Bible-hating Christians. And, as always, i've been researching the Bible as to whether it's God's truthful Word - or just stories handed down from a Cosmic 8 year old. (for this kind of thinking: read Peter's last book "The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It")
But the real Sherlock Holmes mystery isn't the argument right in front of us (that's easy) it's the ability to sit back and see how far to either side this game really goes. I call it consistency. How far will Peter actually chase his rabbit down the hole? Or in scholarly terms (that he's so proud of): How sound and applicable is his logic and rationality?

So, I wanted to find out NOT just what Peter was for - but what he was against? And how much homework did he do to come to these conclusions. Comically, there are a lot of issues Peter doesn't touch. This should be the first warning bell for anyone who claims intelligence and yet applauds Peter.
Mr. Enns claims to be a Christian. But what does that even mean to him? Is he Catholic? Mormon? J.W.? Amish? Branch Davidian? Islamic? Can he worship with these OTHER believer's? How solid is his Christian doctrine? Should he start a new church of uncertainty? Who gets into THIS heaven? Is there a heaven? Does his deity even care, or left any messages at all? Will there be a judgement and a sorting? What exactly did his Jesus die for? Did he even die - or was it just a 1st century parable to make us join Green Peace?
We DON'T KNOW!!! Peter doesn't say.

Peter gets a cover quote from Sarah Bessey (a disciple of Rachel Held Evans). This quote gushes "This book is accessible, freeing, empowering, and beautiful all at the same time. I underlined almost every page."
Well Bimbo, I underlined crap on almost every page as well. But for purely Bad theological/Biblical/Logical reasons. Sarah wrote a rag called JESUS FEMINIST. So you can see where i'm going with this. Some educated Christian women gave her book 1 star and a good scolding. So, similar to Enns and his liberal fodder, here also is a pathetically abusive handling of God's word.

Okay, okay. By now people are probably protesting "Peter just loves Jesus and wants folks to relax and live at peace. Isn't that what Christianity is all about? It's okay if you're WRONG or uncertain about a few minor details."

I get it, we should sit back and let Peter be the joyful Down-syndrome kid at church who greets everyone with a proud "Jesus love you!". Actually that would be Great. (I'm excited to meet a few of these Saints in paradise). But unlike Tommy, Peter is at war. He is desperate to dismantle God's Word and reduce any actual historical/factual claims given to us in scripture. Peter demands that we have no CORRECT Biblical beliefs or doctrine that separates us from Cults and Heretics. Just one big happy CLUELESS mushy family of doubting uncertainties who desperately desire an intimate and trusting relationship with their god of choice. How logical and rational is that? Is that what Jesus died on the cross for? (of course, i'm still not sure if Peter's Jesus actually died on the cross? Peter's deity would never send a person -His Son - to be brutally murdered for His own Cosmic justice and wrath against Sin and Rebellion. The only real sin, that Peter is writing books about, is being CERTAIN about who and what Jesus is.)

Isaiah 53
10But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering...

My brain is apparently wired differently than 95% of other "liberal" Christian Goodreads reviewers. When authors start talking about having intimate trusting relationships with gods ---- I want to know something specific about this deity. Can you be intimate with uncertainty? Can you trust an ambiguous lack of information and CORRECTNESS in a deep relationship? If you boast of being unclear of correct beliefs: then possibly your beliefs will turn out to be WRONG. If we don't have correct beliefs about Hell; who's says we have correct beliefs about Heaven? Or good vs. evil? OR sin and morality? Or existence itself? YES - chase that rabbit down the wonderland hole.

Okay, I wrote about a thousand notes while reading Enns book. Let's get started.

on the inner page I wrote: "I'd love to have a Bible study with this Chap." then I could bring up hundreds of Bible verses that Enns fails to discuss. Like the many many references to a coming Messiah Savior in the Old Testament. (Like Isaiah 53:10 I quoted above). It's one thing for the Bible to be just a bunch of fanciful cultural myths that God smiles at --- but the Bible points to Jesus Specifically and CERTAINLY from beginning to end (thanks Holy Spirit). Now if I was a god: I wouldn't bury a bunch of prophecies in a mountain of lies and myths or fairytales. And then Demand people accept them or else. That's bad logic, even for a god. And worse: If Enns is right - god should never have used such damning specific literature at all. Maybe "IT" should just have put a Memo in the sky that mumbled something about loving and embracing incredibly unclear beliefs. I would love to watch Enns chat with a militant atheist. What could he possibly say to him? Maybe: "BELIEVE, or else... ummmh? Well, nothing really. god doesn't mind, or at least he didn't say much about it. Nothing certain anyway. "

Laughter moment: Peter Enns is now Episcopalian (well duh! that's a given)

I just found a quote from a blogger(?) Keeley Chorn:
" I had seminary professors lose tenure and jobs (Peter Enns and Douglas Green) because of the slightest nuances, which meant disrupting an entire school for the defenders of “truth,” who found it their purpose to safeguard the denomination from ideas that didn’t conform to their version of truth, to their reading and understanding of the faith and of the Bible. So, instead of divisiveness, I chose openness."

Welcome to the liberal world of Episcopalia. They must love having a celebrity like Mr. Enns. Strangely enough, I've argued with some Episcopalians who swore the denomination was EXTREMELY Doctrinally specific AND certain of the Truth of scripture and God's clear history and plan. And yet: Peter and other's stumble into their midst being fully embraced for their openness. So is it just a slight NUANCE that Peter see's no historical or factual truth in God's Word? The Bible itself certainly disagrees with this thought.


Revelation 22:18
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

It's clear that the Bible itself takes the words of God VERY CERTAINLY. Basically warns of being brushed off to hell for messing with God's words through the Prophets and Apostles.

and here's my favorite verse from Jesus about the certainty of scripture: Luke 16:31
31He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Jesus VERY MUCH insists we clearly and Certainly hear Moses and the Prophets. Even the experience of rising from the dead is pointless and of little value. Sorry Pete - the Bible points back to the Bible. There's nothing else from God even to point to. How can you trust anything that has no clear correct beliefs attached to it?
And why trust a source that keeps stating that CORRECT BELIEFS are essential? You claim to be a christian who is defying Christianity itself. That's not logical.


Time to get into this book and its contents. Let's see what's worth poking at:

This book starts off with Peter trying to post scripture to prove his thesis. It fails instantly.
Isaiah 50:10
Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the voice of his servant? Let him who walks in darkness and has no light trust in the name of the LORD and rely on his God.

This book is about how to walk in darkness (or doubt and uncertainty). Apparently we are supposed to FEAR God (what chapter is that emphasized in?), we are also supposed to obey the voice of his servant (Is there a chapter here about the truth and certainty of fearing and obeying God from the trustworthy book of Isaiah? I sure hope so... I wouldn't want Peter to be deceitful.). And obviously "thanks to Peter's quote" we are to trust the God of Isaiah specifically and rely on the specific information we are given about this trustworthy deity.
I'm sure Peter thought of all this stuff when he chose to post that verse. WHAT?! He didn't? Then why are you reading his crap and giving it 4 and 5 stars?

Next bit from the book: Peter posts from the Bible - Proverbs 3:5 (to prove his thesis once again). Fail.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the lord with all of your heart, and do not rely on YOUR OWN insight.

Ummmh? Peter? This entire book is your OWN insight. How does that logically work? You're telling me in 230 pages NOT to trust God's historical/factual/revealed Word, but to listen carefully to YOUR personal insight. That's just poorly thought out buddy. Is this your first day thinking?

Technically i'm not even on page 1 yet - and this book is filled with flaws and stupidity. Once again, Enns attempts to post another Bible verse to back up his OWN insight.

1 Corinthians 13:8-9
8Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end;
as for languages, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end.
11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child,
I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things.
12For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror,but then face to face.
Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.

Petey is all excited that knowledge will pass, and that we only know a little bit. The problem is that this is about the future and how FULL it will be. IT is actually pathetic that we are living like children with limited knowledge NOW - this isn't something to boast of Petey. Seriously. Put aside childish things (and thinking) and read the entire text in context. Eventually we will be FULLY CERTAIN of everything. WE should be questing for When The Perfect Comes. Only an idiot writes books applauding doubt - when doubt is coming to an end.

We've arrived at chapter one: I DON'T KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE ANYMORE

Yes, here all it takes is a Disney movie to get Mr. Enns into a faith crisis. I'm sorry WHAT?! This guy has been working at Bible Colleges, writing books, Teaching the Bible for how many years... and all it takes is a Disney flick to break his faith? Has he been living in a Evangelical faith Bubble for a few decades? Has he never seriously been challenged on his faith before? Never? What have you been doing all this time? Obviously not THINKING and philosophizing and any beginner apologetics.

In the movie a little girl says "...it's because we're all vile sinners that God made Jesus die... they have to believe it because it's in the Bible...if you don't believe in the Bible - God will damn you to hell when you die."

Peter Enns says "And with that, I was nostril deep in a faith crisis - which, I don't mind saying, is embarrassing to admit. It wasn't fair. I wasn't ready."

Peter states that he was watching this movie while he was on his way home from an academic conference. Seriously? He says he was a seminary professor at this time? Has Peter never met an atheist? Or any church-goer with a serious religious concern? OR chatted with a youth-group?
And NOW thousands of people are reading his books because they find him enlightening and freeing and scholarly? This guy is an idiot. (in the nice sense of the word). He was NEVER a scholarly seminary professor... characters in Disney movies befuddled his expertise. And now liberal christians cheer him on and give him 5 star ratings? What the HELL!?

To be fair, Enns does back pedal and attempts to cry about never being allowed to question his faith "I was taught that questioning too much was not safe Christian conduct - it would make God very disappointed in me indeed, and quite angry."
Does Peter even own a Bible? Almost every character in the Bible questions things. Some even argue with God and get angry. We are given the gift of discernment to be able to deal with false claims and confusion. The Holy Spirit even says it will teach and guide us. How the Hell was Peter Enns a Bible professor??? WE have to question EVERYTHING. Or we could end up a Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist... or Democrat.

HE then claims he had "A growth in my spirit that has led to closer intimacy with God."

Which God? The God that calls us vile sinners and damns many to hell? How does Peter even know he had a growth? How can you be intimate with a deity that gives you nothing to trust?
My concern on every page was - Peter tell me something FACTUAL about your God, anything. Now how do you know this outside of the Bible?

It strikes me that Peter NOT only has never chatted with atheists or struggling Christians (outside of Disney films), but he has given zero effort into theologically understanding Cults and world religions. Honestly, there isn't a religion on the planet (no matter how freakin' weird) that hasn't had a leader claim "A growth in my spirit that has led to closer intimacy with God." I'm pretty sure even Charles Manson and Jim Jones said clams like that. (Yes, I said CLAMS).

Chapter One A.

"I believe these uh-oh moments get our attention like nothing else can. In fact, I believe they are God moments."

Similar to Satan in the Garden getting mankind to doubt God's Word, Peter assumes that God gets the credit for his uh-oh moments. Enns simply didn't do his homework. You were a religious professor that didn't bother to read EVERY John MacArthur Book, R.C. Sproul book, Ravi Zacharias book, Josh McDowell book, Endless books by actual Christian scientists who validate the Bible's truth. And don't get me started on the 1900 years of historical theologians who easily dealt with all of your crybaby issues before you. Can we be honest Mr. Enns: you ran to every liberal thinker and doubter that would applaud and support your itches and desires. We can tell by who your friends are, and where you ended up.

Peter complains, "Another dynamic at work here is how friends, family, and church members would handle it if they knew what you were thinking. Feeling judged and banished is a common story..."

Has Enns never heard of a theological debate? The Bible is full of them. Church history is full of them. The internet is now full of them. And for centuries BOOKS were full of them. These aren't new issues buddy. Seriously, have you never researched anything? Do you actually think you have some new questions or concerns for Christianity? What do you think God has been dealing with for 6,000 or so years? What do you think the Reformation was all about? Did you notice an Enlightenment period in somewhat recent history that began to academically dismiss Biblical theology? Where did you get your theological teaching degree? Did they not teach you this stuff?

But it's okay, Peter says that "Thinking for myself wasn't necessary and in fact was frowned upon. The heavy lifting was done for me. I just needed to agree and sign on the dotted line."

Well, there's your fearless leader folks. So please, nobody boast of Mr. Enns academic achievements and University credentials from those periods. He said it himself - He wasn't thinking. But then he got fired (or let go) for it. Apparently they DID want him to think. Shame on them for not paying attention all those years. Now they're both an embarrassment to Theological education and Biblical scholarship.

I'm running out of words. But i'm only on page 17 of his proud befuddlement.
Now it's one thing to argue these points with an atheist or a muslim or buddhist. But we are supposed to be Christian brothers dealing with the Doubt issue. Peter fails to notice that much of his problems are actually Rebellion. Similar to the Hebrews getting antsy waiting for Moses - so they make up their Golden Calf deity that does what their hearts desire. Enns even says:

"WE like our ideas about god, We need them. And that is really the deeper problem here."

Enns runs the wrong way with this of course. Peter fails to notice that his entire argument is a simple failure to get beyond his ideas about God. He declares Moses to be an old stick in the mud about spiritual revelation and assumes a god more to his liking and creativity (and freedom). Up pops a golden calf that every Episcopalian church can easily embrace, or at least tolerate.

To sum it up: I don't need new ideas about God. I sure don't trust my own thoughts on this. But I don't have to - God gave us HIS WORD. He says repeatedly that we can trust it. That we MUST trust it. He shows us endless examples of what happens to people and nations when they become rebellious and no longer tolerate it. And if in doubt - TEST IT. Argue with God about it. But please - know who your Jesus is.

You can't just love and trust Jesus blindly and liberally. Or you might get a Muslim Jesus, a Mormon Jesus, A Buddhist enlightenment Jesus, A Social Justice Warrior Dead-Jew 1st century Zealot Jesus.
There's only one actual useful Jesus: The historical Divine Factual Jesus of the Bible.

Revelation 17:14
They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

You need to be CERTAIN about this Jesus if you even imagine you are His called and chosen and faithful. The only way we know this Jesus is the pages of God's Holy Bible.

[Adam Shields · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short Review: I think that this is a book that is going to be misread by many and left unread by many more because of the title. The main theme is that the role of the church and of us as Christians is to trust Christ and love others as first priority. Repeatedly throughout the book Enns makes clear that he is not opposed to creeds or theological boundaries, but he is opposed to misusing creeds and theological boundaries as an excuse to not love well.

This is really a book about Enns. And so I think if I were his editor, I would have encouraged him to reorganize the book to make his own story earlier and more central. As it is, he is speaking in the book of his own issues (especially how his doubt and lack of real trust in Christ lead to an eventual deeper faith) throughout the book. But it is not until the last section is where he goes into more biographical story. I think that would have been better to move the biographical section earlier in the book which might have given the uncharitable reader a bit more encouragement to be charitable. Enns can be a bit prickly and for people already pre-disposed to view him badly I think this is a book that will be too easily dismissed.

But there is real need for books like this that are written out of recovered (or recovering) pain. Enns was treated badly in his dismissal from Westminster. His daughter's eating disorder at the same time left him questioning God and without supportive community. So I strongly encourage this as a helpful book, but not one without some issues.

My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/sin-of-certainty/

[Jenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pete is apparently "controversial" among Christians. I say, if this book makes you feel defensive of your faith, maybe you need to question why you feel it even needs to be defended. What is it about Pete's own uncertainty that has you so offended in the first place?
I found this book relatable and freeing. My favorite line from the book (maybe, I underlined a LOT of good stuff) was when Pete reminded us that on the cross, Jesus asked why God had forsaken him. Pete said, "Our periods of doubt, where God seems absent or in hiding, move us by God's grace further on the journey, even when we may feel like we've left the path altogether. We are at that moment following the path that Jesus blazed."
I connected so much with this book. He talked about less preached stories, like Job and Psalms and Ecclesiastes, and how if we really look at these books, we can see that it's okay to feel doubtful, frustrated and unsure, just like those who came before us. In fact, God expects it of us. If Bible authors themselves had these moments, without our modern knowledge of science and the world, why wouldn't we? If more Christians were taught that the main goal of Christianity isn't to be right and certain all the time, maybe less people would wander from the faith when their stability is shaken.
Pete takes the scary, nuanced topics that we normally hide from, and makes them a place for us to meet God where we are and grow in our relationship with Him. As humans, we have an unspoken NEED for our ideas about God to be right in order to feel like our faith has meaning. What we need to do is trust God even in uncertainty and the possibility that we're getting some of it wrong. After all, isn't it more faithful to trust Him in our uncertainty? We need to start allowing ourselves the challenge of an unsettled, but deeper and more authentic, faith. By sharing his own uncertain faith journey, Pete's book opens that door for the rest of us.

[Jon · Rating 1 out of 5]

No reason to beat around the bush on this, Peter Enns is a heretic, plain and simple. He’s an engaging and winsome author. He tells a fine story, but that’s it—it’s just a story.

From beginning to end, the content of the book is clearly agenda-driven. It’s full of lies and half-truths about God, all presented behind a thin veil of disarming humor. It’s clear that Enns doesn’t actually know anything about the sovereign God. He wastes much of his time making excuses for a god he inaccurately portrays and who, in truth, doesn’t exist.

I’m so tired of my friends being wooed away from Christian faith by deconstructionist bullshit like this. It is not a sin to be certain. As Christians we should be firm in our faith and certain of what we believe. Our faith is based on the revealed word of the only sovereign God. If God really is sovereign, we can be certain of the authority, inerrancy, and accuracy of Scripture. If God isn’t sovereign and is incapable of giving us exactly the Scripture he wants us to have, then he, by definition, is not God, and is not worth worshipping.

This heretical agenda by Enns and people like him is chopping the foundation out from under people’s faith. Some are apparently able to, illogically, exist without a foundation for a while, but make no mistake, the end of this line of thinking is a full rejection of Christian faith. Enns is a heretic. Everything about his agenda needs to be rejected.

[Curtis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can it be a coincidence that I always seem to be reading specific books at just the right time I need to hear what they are saying? I doubt it. Peter Enns here sheds light on the problems a reliance on our right beliefs can cause in our walk with God. Distinguishing faith and belief from what we think and say about God provides an important and necessary frame through which we see our life and God with us. Faith and belief are trustful action words rather than doctrinal statements we recite, and as those statements shift here and there with time we can remain trusting in the faithfulness of God. We can remain in relationship with God because He alone can take our full range of emotion and experience and continue to love us through to something redemptive.

While I found his humour over the top at times I understand he's trying to lighten the mood, identify with the audience and make a point. He may also be that quirky of a character. I was also uncomfortable with the way he framed the topics that have led to many crises of faith for recent generations of Christians. I suppose that's the point but I also think the way they were stated could have been more nuanced and generous in providing the varied viewpoints. Overall, I appreciated the openness the author displayed in writing of his own life and hope this work serves many followers of Christ in their quest to walk out life in deepening trust of God.

[Kiel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Asked a lot of good questions, and in my opinion gave a lot of bad answers. I guess if the goal is put a damper on certainty that's what you do. I agree with Enns that there are problems in American Christianity that are important to deal with, that come from kinds of certainty in and from the Bible that the Bible itself isn't aimed at providing. My problem is that he overreacts and overshoots. He claims to hold to a version of biblical authority that after reading this and his "For The Bible Tells Me So" last year, I can't see in his approach. I can't recommend his books as a way to understand the Bible and it's message, because I find him exceedingly misleading. The things that he ends up actually being certain about lead me to believe he's more certain in naturalistic humanism than Christ, that perhaps that's what Christ wants from us according to him, a baptized version of course. But who knows, we can't be certain. I will say he writes palatably while many scholars can't bring themselves to lower their vocab if their lives depended on it. I do believe he sees his writing as a kind of ministry though he actively deflects the notion that he is in any way a pastor. But that bothers me too, because it's obvious that what he denies is an extreme deconstruction, not just of historical grammatical Bible interpretation, but of any form of a traditional Christian worldview, which has clear pastoral impact that is intentionally sought after in his approach. So, I can't recommend it, but I like reading people I don't agree with, it fires me up in ways that won't happen otherwise. In the Middle Ages guys like Enns and I might have been on the opposite sides of a literal battlefield. In our time I'd like to think that he and I could buy each other some drinks while we yelled at each about our differences. Maybe we could leave such an event as frenemies. I could live with that.

[Blair Hodges · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Enns offers here a confessional book about how he came to understand belief and faith more in terms of trust and love than in terms of facts and knowledge. Many Christians place being "correct" about God at the center of faith, as did Enns, until a series of faith crises made him reconsider his understanding of Christianity.

The book is conversational, and so at times a little meandering, but it can be divided roughly into three parts: history, exegesis, and theology.

First, history. Enns describes how Christians became preoccupied by correct thinking through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with the rise of Darwinism, scientific advances, and biblical criticism rocked certain status quo ideas about Christianity. Rather than debunking criticisms here, he lays out the problems, explaining that to offer quick answers here risks rescuing misplaced certainty with more misplaced certainty.

Next, exegesis. He discovers in the Bible--especially the Hebrew Bible--passages that model a faith that isn't rooted in certainty or knowledge. The Preacher in Ecclesiastes, many of the Psalms, Job, and other passages where people express doubt and even anger toward God. The Bible, Enns argues, models a complex variety of approaches to faith, and thereby takes pressure off of today's believers who otherwise feel they must be certain and dogmatic in order to justify their beliefs.

Finally, drawing on the New Testament Enns outlines a theology of belief patterned after the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul speaks of believers dying to themselves and being raised in Christ, Jesus speaks of taking up one's cross and following him (a cross is something you die on, it's not just a weight exercise). Enns suggests the idea that for many people, faith itself undergoes this transition of death and resurrection repeatedly throughout life.

The book concludes with personal stories of Enns wrestling with family problems and work difficulties over the past decade or so, a period when in the midst of his own crushing doubt he discovered deeply rooted Christian thinking about God's absence, about the "dark night of the soul." The believer's time of despair is like Christ crying out on the cross, "Father, why have you forsaken me?"

In total, the book is a striking critique of contemporary Christian culture. It's an invitation to re-center one's faith. If believers place their trust in the image of God they have in their own minds, they risk creating an idol that overshadows the true, living God who is beyond a human's comprehension to fully grasp. Remaining open to that living God requires an extraordinary amount of trust, but it is the only way to avoid the "sin of certainty."

Full review here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/07/2...

[Alison LaMarr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many great light bulb moments in this one. Great for anyone feeling bogged down or even let down by their religion (Christian). Basic premise that being certain when it comes to religious belief sets people and institutions up for failure for a variety of reasons. It is preoccupied with correct thinking and policing your own thoughts and that of others. Instead, he argues faith is about hope and trust and mystery. Interesting that no matter the denomination, many, many people of faith go through intense periods of doubt.

Some ideas:
“A faith that rests on knowing, where you have to “know what you believe” in order to have faith, is a disaster upon disaster waiting to happen. It values too highly our mental abilities. All it takes to ruin that kind of faith is a better argument. And there’s always a better argument out there somewhere.”

“I see my own life of faith as an ongoing rebuilding and renovation project.”

And “Rather than being quick to settle on final answers to puzzling questions, a trust-centered faith will find time to formulate wise questions that respect the mystery of God and call upon God for the courage to sit in those questions for as long as necessary before seeking a way forward.”

[Bob Schilling · Rating 1 out of 5]

Better Titled, “The Morass of an Unmoored Life.”

This is a book of astonishing unbelief and mockery. I had been nominally aware of Peter Enns and the controversies surrounding him back in 2005 through my seminary days in 2008 and 2009. His trajectory has landed him in fields far, far, far from orthodoxy. And he revels in his doubts.

With endorsements by guys like Brian McLaren and Walter Brueggemann and favorable quotes within by the likes of Rob Bell, Thomas Merton, Mother Teresa, Greg Boyd, Rachel Held Evans, Philip Yancey and Ann Lamott – you get an idea for where this book is going.

Plainly, Peter Enns is not a Christian. An impressive pedigree of degrees, and fourteen years a professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, Peter writes in this book of his spiritual pilgrimage away from Evangelicalism and awakening to a “contemplative tradition in Christianity” (190). His main point is “that trust means letting go of the need to know, of the need to be certain” (192). His experiences have drawn him out of his “safe haven of certainty and onto the path of trusting God” (192).

Concern about believing right content actually distracts us, says Enns, from genuine faith. “A faith preoccupied with certainty is sin” – and “compromises the gospel” (210). The real good news, according to Enns, is regardless of what you believe about God, “just trust” (53). Don’t get hung up by reason, because “this focus on being correct (believing right things about God) can actually distract us from faith and from God.” Trust takes over “when faith in God no longer makes sense” (120). It doesn’t matter what faith tradition you participate in, or what you believe or don’t believe about God, what matters is just trusting whatever it is you trust regardless of your doubts (16).

“Doubt is divine tough love” (165). It’s actually doubt, not faith, that is transforming (164). “Doubt is sacred. Doubt is God’s instrument, [and] will arrive in God’s time” (164). Don’t resist doubt, don’t fight it, and by all means don’t seek to fix it with commitment to right thoughts or right doctrine. “The key is to decouple our faith in God from our thoughts about God” (16). This is indeed, BLIND FAITH. He wants to say “of course, [that] believing is never empty of content” (93) – but the focus of faith is not on *what* a person believes, but on *who* regardless of how you define him. God is “transrational” – so just trust, whatever it is that you trust.

The sections of chapter two comprise his fourfold knock-out punches of conservative Evangelicalism:
- Evolution: the Bible is Wrong (“Oh Great, We Came From Monkeys”)
- Archeology: the Bible is Myth (“Seriously Weird Stories from Long Ago”)
- Higher Criticism: the Bible is Errant (“The Germans are Coming”)
- Slavery: The Bible is Biased and Confused (“Slavery: Whose Side Is God On?”)

The sections of chapter six comprise his explanations of the five legitimate arguments against Christian faith:
- “The Bible portrays God as violent, reactive, vengeful, blood-thirsty, immoral, mean and petty” (121-124).
- “The Bible and science collide on too many things to think that the Bible has anything to say to us today about eh big questions of life” (125-129).
- “In the face of injustice and heinous suffering in the world, God seems disinterested or perhaps unable to do anything about it” (130-134).
- “In our ever-shrinking world, it is difficult to hold on to any notion that Christianity is the only path to God” (135-139).
- “Christians treat each other so badly and in such harmful ways that it calls into question the validity of Christianity – or even whether God exists” (140-143).

This is what unbelief looks like.

This is what liberalism looks like.

There is not a part of Scripture that he does not misread (Note his atrocious comment on the book of Job, pg. 221).

And ironically, in numerous places He evidences such CERTAINTY! Page 200, “I am certain that Paul’s sufferings…” (there are repeated examples of confident assertions).

Enough. Peter Enns has abandoned “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). In his own words, “That horse has left the stable” (191). He’s done with “lengthy sermons [at] the center of worship” (193). He’s done with the exclusivity of Christ (135-139). He’s bought into all the old arguments against Scripture and the Gospel – and presumes to have discovered a more ancient path. His way is a “mystical faith,” “a faith that remains open to the ever-moving Spirit and new possibilities” (208), a “transrational” faith (193). “As I was bathing in my inner agnosticism, I was drawn to authors and others who were explicitly outside of the Christian tradition or not as easily recognized as being in it…”

A man that is not a Christian claiming still to be a Christian and currently “Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, PA.” Without reservation or hesitation, I would plainly tell you that this book is the voice of the serpent (Genesis 3:1-5). Peter Enns is an apostate. I read it for myself after coming across a second hand copy only so that I could see how far he had fallen. This is Rob Bell; this is William Young; this is Bart Ehrman; this is Brian McLaren; this is Peter Enns (Matthew 18:6).

[Emily]

"...life has all sorts of everyday and ordinary ways of upsetting our thinking about our faith. I believe that, in these moments, God invites us to deepen and grow in our relationship with and our understanding of God." (8)

****

"Church is too often the most risky place to be spiritually honest. What a shame." (9)

****

"Seeking answers to those questions meant accepting the challenge of an unsettled faith. That takes courage, and if there is one part of my spiritual life that atrophied over the previous twenty years it was courage--the courage to think, to be honest, to be. I didn't know how to 'do' faith without making sure my thoughts about God were lined up, and so, once those thoughts failed to be compelling, my faith sank...

"My faith transformed from 'I know what I believe' to 'I think I know.' then, as if bicycling down a steep hill with no brakes, it moved more quickly to
I think I thought I knew,
I'm not so sure anymore,
I don't really know anymore,
Honestly, I have no idea,
Leave me alone.

"It felt like pressing factory reset so my software could reload. And as it did, I began to wonder, Maybe...I need a major shift in my thinking.
Maybe knowing, as I had been taught to know, is overrated.
Knowing like that doesn't last.
Knowing has its place, definitely, but not at the center of faith.

"And then for me, the bottom line:
I can choose to trust God with childlike trust regardless of how certain I might feel.

"I've come to see this process as sacred and ongoing. And it also takes courage--more courage and trust in God than I could have understood before."

****

"No one just 'follows' the Bible. We interpret it as people with a past and present, and in community with others, within certain traditions, none of which is absolute. Many factors influence how we 'follow' the Bible. None of us rises above our place in the human drama and grasps God with pure clarity, without our own baggage coming along for the ride. We all bring our broken and limited selves into how we think of God.

"We're human, in other words. We can't help but think of God in broken and limited ways, as creatures limited by time and space.

"But that isn't the problem. In fact, the Christian faith declares that God freely and lovingly entered the human drama uniquely in one member of the human race, Jesus of Nazareth. God is okay with our humanity.

"Here is the temptation: we can forget that we are human and delude ourselves into thinking that we can transcend our tiny place in the human drama and see from on high, as God sees. It turns out that is not really one of our options. Walking the path of faith means trusting God enough to let our uh-oh moments expose how we create God to fit in our thinking. But that is hard work. We like our ideas about God. We need them. And that is really the deeper problem here."

****

"When we grab hold of 'correct' thinking for dear life, when we refuse to let go because we think that doing so means letting go of God, when we dig in our heels and stay firmly planted even when we sense that we need to let go and move on, at that point we are trusting our thoughts rather than God. We have turned away from God's invitation to trust in order to cling to an idol.

"The need for certainty is sin because it works off of fear and limits God to our mental images. And God does not like being boxed in. By definition, God can't be. I believe we are prone to forget that. God is good to remind us--by any means necessary, if we are willing to listen. God understands our human predicament and is for us." (19)

****

"The deeper problem here is the unspoken need for our thinking about God to be right in order to have a joyful, freeing, healing, and meaningful faith.

"The problem is trusting our beliefs rather than trusting God.

"The preoccupation with holding on to correct thinking with a tightly closed fist is not a sign of strong faith. It hinders the life of faith, because we are simply acting on a deep unnamed human fear of losing the sense of familiarity and predictability that our thoughts about God give us. Believing that we are right about God helps give us a sense of order in an otherwise messy world. So when we are confronted with the possibility of being wrong, that kind of 'faith' becomes all about finding ways to hold on with everything we've got to be right.

"We are not actually trusting God at that moment. We are trusting ourselves and disguising it as trust in God."

****

"I believe that the Bible does not model a faith that depends on certainty for the simple fact that the Bible does not provide that kind of certainty. Rather, in all its messy diversity, the Bible models trust in God that does not rest on whether we are able to be clear and certain about what to believe.

"In fact, the words 'belief' and 'faith' in the Bible are just different ways of saying 'trust.' And trust works, regardless of where our knowing happens to be." (53)

****

"Feeling like God is far away, disinterested, or dead to you is part of our Bible and can't be brushed aside. And that feeling--no matter how intense it may be, and even offensive as it may seem--is never judged, shamed, or criticized by God. Worshiping other gods or acting unjustly toward others gets criticized about every three sentences, but not this honest talk of feeling abandoned by God.

"And let's not forget, the Gospels tell us that Jesus himself experienced God's abandonment on the cross, and he uses a ready and waiting psalm to express his feelings: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). We're in good company.

"These expressions of abandonment aren't godless moments, evidence that something is wrong and needing to be fixed. They relay the experiences of ancient men and women of faith, and were kept because those experiences were common--part of being an Israelite and therefore valued. For us they signal not only what can happen in the life of faith, but also what does happen--what we should expect to happen." (60)

****

"Pistis is also an action word--and here is where things get interesting. When used as an action word, pistis is usually translated as faithful/faithfulness or trustworthy/trustworthiness.

"So what? Well, knowing this will give us a bigger and deeper view of what the New Testament writers are after when they talk about faith. And it's not so much something we 'have,' like the thoughts we 'have' in our heads or the feelings we 'have' in our hearts.

"Faith describes our whole way of looking at life and how we act on that.

"Faith describes a parent letting go of the fear for his child and handing that child over to Jesus. Faith like that is a conscious decision to trust--and it's hard to let go of control and do that. Faith is a tough word.

"Faith is not only directed toward God but toward other people. Followers of Jesus are to be pistis toward each other--meaning 'faithful' toward each other. As Paul puts it, '...the only thing that counts is faith [pistis] working through love' (Galatians 5:6). He isn't saying, 'Listen, we've got two things going on here: the faith we have inside and then the love we show toward others.' Replacing 'faith' with faithfulness helps us see Paul's point more clearly. He is saying that faith and love are two sides of the same coin.

"Faith isn't simply something that happens between God and us. Faith is a community word." (99)

****

"Like God the Father and God the Son, we are also called to be faithful. On one level, we are faithful to God when we trust God. But faith--pistis--doesn't stop there. It extends, as we've seen, to faithfulness toward each other--in humility and self-sacrificial love.

"And here is the real kick in the pants. When we are faithful to each other like this, we are more than simply being nice and kind, though there's that. Far more important, when we are faithful to each other, we are at that moment acting like the faithful God and the faithful Son.

"Being like God. That's the goal. And we are most like God not when we are certain we are right about God, or when we tell others how right we are, but when we are acting toward one another like the faithful Father and Son.

"Humility, love, and kindness are our grand acts of faithfulness and how we show that we are all in. 'No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us' (1 John 4:12). Loving each other is the closest we get to seeing God.

"Being 'in' with God is about much more than the thoughts we keep in our heads, the belief systems we hold on to, the doctrines we recite, or the statements of faith we adhere to, no matter how fervently and genuinely we do so, and how important they may be. Being obsessed with making sure we have all our thoughts about God properly arranged and defended isn't faith. How trusting we are of God day to day and how Godlike we live among those around us day to day is." (101-102)

****

" 'Know what you believe' needs a 'them' as a contrast. But travel broadens. When the bigger world is tossed in our lap, that sort of confidence wanes and the 'them' category shrinks. We begin to wonder whether there even is a 'them.' And we hope that God really does love the world enough to let nothing get in the way--especially where and when someone was born." (137)

****

"A faith that eats its own not only drives people out but also sends up a red flare to the rest of humanity that Christianity is just another exclusive members-only club, and that Jesus is a lingering relic of antiquity, rather than a powerful, present-defining spiritual reality; a means of gaining power rather than relinquishing it. And who needs that, really?" (141)

****

"Of course, all organizations, Christian or not, have lines that define who they are. Having boundaries is not the problem. The problem comes when Christians in positions of authority and power (or those seeking to gain it) become tyrannical, strangers to reason, and mow down the opposition all in service of God and God's kingdom...

"We can't make Bible difficulties, the modern world, pain and suffering, or contact with other religions go away. But we can stop being mean and ugly. Anytime we want to. If we want to.

"And we need to. Jesus says so. And the gospel really is at stake. People's lives are at stake."

****

"Love happens whether we feel it or not. Love is an action, a selfless act, something we do for others without thinking of ourselves or how it will make us look. Loving others is the most self-emptying, self-denying, thing we can do, because true love has the other person on the top shelf.

"As Jesus told a listening crowd long ago, when you love others you are acting most like God at that very moment (Matthew 5:43-48).

"The crowd that Jesus addressed was in some ways no different than one would be in our day. Their impulse, as is ours, was to love their neighbor--those most like them--and to hate their enemies--which in Jesus's day most likely referred to the Romans, who did not share much of anything with the Jews, least of all religious beliefs.

"But Jesus stared right into this 'us vs. them' mindset and told the crowd that they should love their enemies, too. In fact, they should pray for them, even when those enemies were persecuting them (which happened now and then with the Roman government in charge).

"When 'us vs. them' is your way of life, loving a 'them' is hard enough. Praying for a 'them' is harder still. We want to pray down God's blood-curdling war cry of wrath and pestilence--or at least pierce and wound them with our sharp words while making photocopies. But Jesus says enough of that. To be like God means to be perfect in love (verse 48). To love as God loves means loving not just others like us, but those who are not..." (147-8)

****

"But doubt is not the enemy of faith, a solely destructive force that rips us away from God, a dark cloud that blocks the bright warm sun of faith. Doubt is only the enemy of faith when we equate faith with certainty in our thinking.

"Doubt is what being cornered by our thinking looks like. Doubt happens when needing to be certain has run its course.

"Doubt can certainly leave us empty and frightened, but that is precisely the benefit of doubt: it exposes the folly that strong faith means you need to 'know what you believe,' that the more faith you 'have,' the more certain you are.

"Doubt means spiritual relocation is happening. It's God's way of saying, 'Time to move on.'

"Doubt is powerful. It can do things spiritually that must be done that we would never do on our own. Doubt has a way of forcing our hand and confronting us with the challenge of deeper trust in God..." (157)

****

"Doubting God is painful and frightening because we think we are leaving God behind, when in fact we are only leaving behind ideas about God that we are used to surrounding ourselves with--the small God, the God within our control, the God who moves in our circles, the God who agrees with us.

"Doubt strips away distraction so we can see more clearly the inadequacies of whom we think God is and move us from the foolishness of thinking that our god is the God.

"Many of us, I would imagine, think we have God figured out pretty well--and for people like me, who get paid to tell people what God is like, it's an occupational hazard. We read the Bible and are able to quote it to others. We go to church like clockwork and get involved in groups and service projects. We're going great, and God must surely be impressed.

"It is so easy to slip into 'right thinking' mode--that we have arrived at full faith. We know what church God goes to, what Bible translation God prefers, how God votes, what movies God watches, and what books God reads. We know the kinds of people God approves of. God has winners and losers, and we are the winners, the true insiders. God likes all the things we like. We speak for God and think nothing of it.

"All Christians I've ever met who take their faith seriously sooner or later get caught up in thinking that God really is what we think God is, that there is little more worth learning about the Creator of the cosmos. God becomes the face in the mirror.

"By his mercy, God doesn't leave us there." (158-9)

****

"Crosses are heavy, yes, but that's not the point. You don't take up a cross simply to carry it. You take up your cross to die on it. That's the point of crosses.

"Following Jesus isn't like a burden we carry on our shoulders. It's an internal process so radical and painful that the best way to describe it for people of that day is as the act of being bound and nailed like a criminal to a piece of wood lifted above the ground where you are left hanging in naked humiliation and intense pain until you suffocate.

"And that's a far cry from the claim of some televangelists that 'Jesus wants to make you rich and successful.' Jesus wants to make us whole. That requires a process up for the challenge." (161)

****

"Doubt is sacred. Doubt is God's instrument, will arrive in God's time, and will come from unexpected places--places out of your control. And when it does, resist the fight-or-flight impulse. Pass through it--patiently, honestly, and courageously for however long it takes. True transformation takes time." (164)

****

"Being conscious of this process does not relieve the pain o doubt, but it may help circumnavigate our corrupted instinct, which is to fear doubt as the enemy to be slain. Rather, supported by people we trust not to judge us, we work on welcoming the process as a gift--which is hard to do when our entire life narrative is falling down around us. But we are learning in that season, as Qohelet did, to trust God anyway and not to trust our 'correct' thinking about God.

"Doubt is divine tough love. God means to have all of us, not just the surface, going-to-church, volunteering part. Not just the part people see, but the parts so buried no one sees them.

"Not even us."

****

"When reading Paul's letters, it's easy to get lost in the details, so let's not: suffering with (not for!) Christ is what children of God do. Suffering is not a sign that something is wrong with us and has to be corrected. Suffering is a key component of what identifies us as children of God."

****

"So let me say it in a way that the ancient Israelites couldn't: when we are in despair or fear and God is as far away from us as the most distant star in the universe, we are at that moment 'with' Christ more than we know--and perhaps more than we ever have been--because when we suffer, we share in and complete Christ's sufferings. And we don't have to understand that to know we should like it.

"I am not glorifying suffering or papering over the pain. but when weariness and hopelessness settle in, at that very moment, our suffering is Christ's suffering and his is ours. We are more like Christ in these moments than we might realize." (200)

****

"Letting go of the need for certainty is more than just a decision about how we think; it's a decision about how we want to live.

"When the quest for finding and holding on to certainty is central to our faith, our lives are marked by traits we wouldn't normally value in others:
* unflappable dogmatic certainty
* vigilant monitoring of who's in and who's out
* preoccupation with winning debates and defending the faith
* privileging the finality of logical arguments
* conforming unquestionably to intellectual authorities and celebrities

"A faith like that is in constant battle mode, like a cornered honey badger. Or like a watchman on the battlements scanning the horizon from sun up to sun down for any threat. And soon you forget what faith looks like when you're not fighting about it.

"That kind of faith is not marked by trust in the Creator. It is stressful and anxiety laden, and it doesn't make for healthy relationships with others, including those closest to us." (204)

****

"Rather than defining faithfulness as absolute conformity to authority and tribal identity, a trust-centered faith will value in others the search for true human authenticity that may take them away from the familiar borders of their faith, while trusting God to be part of that process in ourselves and others, even those closest to us.

"The choice of how we want to live is entirely ours."

****

"Israel's faith was flexible, not set in stone.

"Movement, change, and surprise are woven into the very fabric of the Christian faith. A crucified and risen Savior was the surprising act of God's faithfulness. It challenged conventional notions of what it meant for the God of Israel's story to show up--messiahs were supposed to rule from the throne in Jerusalem, not due. And this gospel continues to challenge our conceptions of God today.

"A faith that remains open to God complicating our certainties will not only affect our own lives and the lives of those closest to us. It will also make us better world citizens."

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Several years back a noted evangelical Bible scholar was forced to resign from his teaching position at a conservative but fairly well-regarded evangelical seminary. Apparently a book he published didn't sit well in certain quarters of the seminaries constituency. That seminary's loss became the gain for the broader body of Christ. This often happens. But it also freed him to be more open to the Spirit and to critical scholarship.

As I am going to be writing a review for the Englewood Review of Books, I won't go into full detail here. But, I will share a few tidbits, which I will expand in the ERB review.

The title of the book, is evocative, the subtitle may possibly be a bit misleading. It is true that the focus of this book is danger posed by Christians seeking certainty. You might call this a sin since the search for certainty, which Enns had pursued, focuses attention on doctrinal conformity rath than God. The reason why the subtitle might be misleading is that it might lead one to believe that beliefs/doctrines don't matter. Instead, all you need to do is trust God. My sense from reading the book is that while Enns theological horizons have certainly broadened, and he's recognized the place and importance of doubt in the Christian journey, I don't think his theology has changed all that much.

I'll say more in my ERB review, but my sense is that the primary audience isn't someone like me, though it might have been twenty-five years ago. I could resonate with what he had to say, and the book is very personal, I don't need to be convinced of the problem of seeking certainty. I let go of that need a long time ago. But, I know that many are there and need this word. Thus, he's writing to fellow evangelicals who are struggling with the world as it stands and their attempts to connect this reality they're experiencing with their theology. What Enns does is invite them to let go of the need to make everything fit. The bible is an ancient book that is not meant to answer every question. However, the Bible, especially the Old Testament, offers us insight into the human soul and its relationship with the Creator.

It's a good book. It's personal. It moves along pretty well, though there are some points that feel repetitious. If you're struggling with your faith, especially dealing with doubt, then this book is definitely for you.

[Joe Terrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I actually debated between this book 2 stars or 3. I love Peter Enns, his podcast (The Bible for Normal People) and his academic work (Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam), but The Sin of Certainty fell short of my expecations.

Maybe I've been desensitized by the work of Peter Rollins and Rob Bell, but there's wasn't a lot in here that was altogether revelatory or mind-blowing. Honestly, a lot of Enns's explorations of spiritual doubt were pretty similar to what I used to hear in my conservative upbringing: Just trust God, even if you don't know the answers.

I mean, at times it feels like Enns believes he's reaching conclusions that he thinks are way more radical than they really are. He dances around some pretty big issues - like Hell, the problem of evil, and creationism - but never really sticks a meaningful landing on any of them. Except for a couple of jarring statements, this is a book that would sit pretty comfortably between Christian authors like Max Lucado or Philip Yancy.

Which is really frustrating because I know Peter Enns could push this topic so much further than he does in this book.

Also, much like his previous book The Bible Tells Me So..., the format is pretty scattered. Full of short chapters, it can be hard to follow the narratives and the points being made that lead to his conclusions.

I didn't want to give The Sin of Certainty two stars because that would imply I don't agree with the author's points. But I totally do. And I have a lot of goodwill toward Enns because of his academic contributions elsewhere. Maybe if you're experiencing your first faith crisis, you'll find this book freeing and helpful. But if you're a regular reader of any of the authors who have blurbs on this one's back cover (Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr, Sarah Bessey, etc.), you won't find anything new here.

[Greg Diehl · Rating 5 out of 5]

I simply cannot recommend this book enough, particularly to anyone who has participated for any amount of time in a religious community that all too often places a premium on the language of certainty (e.g., what Enns refers to as "right" or "correct" beliefs). Needing "to know" orients our religious experience too much on beliefs about rather than primarily as trust in. Enns does an excellent job of conveying the need for each of us to keep our eye on the ball and place our ultimate trust in God. Church, beliefs, doctrine etc. - all important - but at the end of the day, these are all means to a much more important end - a trusting and vulnerable relationship with God himself.

For me, this book felt more like a conversation with a longtime kindred spirit. As I was reading, my daughter came into my study and asked me who I was talking to? Evidently, many of Enns insights had flipped my internal dialog switch to speakerphone mode and the rest of my family was subjected to several outbursts of "Yes!" and "Thank You!" I was particularly struck by Enns observation that church is too often the riskiest place to be spiritually vulnerable and honest (museum vs. hospital analogy) - which is such a shame.

One quote I feel compelled to share: “God will eventually expose the limitations of our thinking. Then we can (and will) see the inevitability to letting go of the need to know (intellectually) and trust God instead - as best we can each moment - because God is God. Trust like this is an affront to reason, the control our egos crave. Which is precisely the point. Trust does not work because we have captured God in our minds. It works regardless of the fact that, at the end of the day, we finally learn that we can’t.” Yes! and Thank You!

[Sasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was extremely encouraging to me in my journey of faith at this point in my life. It's no C.S. Lewis deep theological writing, but it was exactly what I was needing. The author almost gets a little redundant in his point, which is exactly what the title implies...but it was like a push towards freedom in my life. The author mentions several times, he doesn't have the answers, this isn't swapping out one idea of certainty for another....it is encouraging you to give up trying to hold on to the certainty of answers that the church culture so often presents itself of having and living a life of trust. It's really not a simple task, but something I believe God would much rather us live by...trust rather than certainty.

[Lindsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very good. If you grew up in a fundamentalist religious upbringing in which certainty was central to your faith, this book will be most meaningful. These were my favorite aspects of the book:

- short, readable chapters. You won't get bogged down in theological dogma or deconstruction. His stories are relatable and wise in their simplicity.

- vulnerability. Pete comes across so knowledgable & sarcastic on his podcast (and those are not criticisms!) but his book struck me as so open & vulnerable. I have recently read books by Jonathon Martin & Mike Mchargue and I was blown away by how emotional these Christian men are - in my experience Christian writing by men is either lofty or dense and impersonal. It is amazing to read men who 1) aren't afraid to share their mystical experiences of God 2) speak openly about the cleansing power of emotions (so much crying!) 3) share boldly their experiences of vulnerability & surrender! I would add this book to the list! I think these authors (I would add Richard Rohr too) are leading the way towards gender equality and emotionally healthy spirituality.

- trust. If I began life on the fundamentalist end of the spectrum I've been recently swinging towards the skeptics end pretty quickly. As I loosened my grip I was letting most everything slip out - why bother with faith at all? Is it rational to believe in any sort of divine presence? Those questions will always be there, but the difference is "trust in God, not correct thinking about God, is the beginning and end of faith, the only true and abiding path."

I read this book pretty quickly, I need to sit in some of this for a while to let it sink in. Looking forward to reading through it again someday.

[Jon Beadle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Woke orthodoxy at its best. Which is to say that Enns is an enjoyable dialogue partner for myself. I would have jumped on board with him 5 years ago, when I was a “born again” progressive (theologically speaking), but now that I’ve embraced a more ancient faith, I can only see the places his thought has been colonized by secularity.

[Marty Solomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's really hard to review this book, it's so straight forward you've got to read it. I love reading Enns because he is so practical and relatable in the way that he writes about things of significance. This book is exactly what it would sound like — a book on how destructive our western preoccupation with certainty can be.

Enns starts with pursuing the premise that we need to forsake our obsession with being right and equating "faith" with knowledge. Faith is not rock-solid certainty. Faith is trust.

He then moves on to show how the Bible is really bad at promoting certainty; in fact, it seems to do just the opposite. He looks at many examples in the Scriptures and draws great personal application as he does.

He closes the book by sharing and reflecting on his own personal journey and talking about what giving up certainty can do for our faith, our ability to serve the world, and our relationship with God. The book is fantastic and a great read for a world that is being more and more polarized and dramatic by the day.

[J.L. Neyhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read my full review here.

I really enjoy Peter Enns's books. I think I may have found this particular book even more helpful to me personally a few years ago, more towards the beginning of my own journey with doubts in the midst of faith. And I think I benefited more from Greg Boyd's book, Benefit of the Doubt, which I read a couple of years ago. But I still would recommend The Sin of Certainty to anyone who has struggled with doubts in their faith. Enns reminds us that certainty is not the point, trusting God is.

[Joel Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite Pete Enns' reputation as a "progressive" (e.g. heretic) in some Christian circles, his work in The Sin of Certainty resonates with the thinking conservative and liberal Christian alike. Enns focuses on the culture of American evangelical Christianity, which emphasizes faith in a set of beliefs, rather than engaging in a dynamic relationship with God. Enns releases doubters from the false prison of obsession with "correct" doctrine and points readers toward leaning into a trust in the beautiful mystery of the divine.

[Kristin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Enns does best when he is telling stories or looking at Biblical passages (although I would have liked a more in-depth analysis here), but I found the book to get slightly repetitive despite only being about 200 pages. It's a good premise, and important, but I wanted more meat. However, it was written for a wide audience and is super accessible, which is a skill in itself. I just wanted more from it than I got. Also he doesn't tell his own story until the end I think it was a driving force for this book, so it should have been closer to the beginning.

[Anne · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only got about half way through. It seemed like circular reasoning. We shouldn't be certain. God does His own thing & often doesn't follow through with what we think He promised. There's no reason to trust God. Trust Him anyway. I started off thinking this would be a promising book, but it bogged down.

[Samcwright · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I’ve mixed thoughts about this book. On the one hand, it suggests a degree of biblical literalism that I don’t believe is as pervasive as the author suggests. I’m generally not a fan of those who try to make their point stronger by creating a strawman of the other side’s arguments. Then again, I may be wrong in my assumptions about the percentage of believers who hold fundamentalist views about the Bible.

I agree with the central thesis. God wants us to have a relationship with him, not with the Bible or with doctrine. To do that, He pushes against what we think we know about Him and forces us to continually engage with Him. He wants us to come to trust him.

I tend to have more nuanced beliefs and nothing in this book was particularly enlightening. But I can see that some people would find it very interesting. I could also see this book confirming the biases of liberal religious thinkers who believe their more conservative counterparts are committed to a degree of biblical literalism that I don’t believe exists. And from that perspective, I think the book is more heat than light.

[Sharon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love and agree with a lot of what this man has to say facing the hard questions about our faith. I think it’s important that we’re not afraid to ask God the difficult questions like “why would You let this person die like that” etc….however at some points I feel as if he almost calls God unjust-I may struggle with some questions for sure, but I know I can rest knowing He cannot be unjust-perhaps the way he worded his thoughts sometimes just didn’t come across right, but it definitely made me a little wary as I kept reading.

[Christopher Angulo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was suuuuper insightful read. Well worth the read.

[Lilly · Rating 1 out of 5]

Honestly this book reads like it was written by an atheist. I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning what you believe but this writer seems to have an agenda of discrediting the Bible and everything Christians believe. There are a few really good passages that talk about believing in God in the midst of doubt and when things don't make sense but they are surrounded and vastly outnumbered by the author's doubts about God, more the kinds of doubts an atheist would have.

After trying to demolish the reasons many people believe in God and the Bible the author expects us to trust Him when things don't make sense and for no good reason. Here are a few quotes from the book that give it its overall tone. Again, there's nothing wrong with questioning or even thinking as the author does but rather than use these questions as a way to strengthen faith and address I think the author really believes them and doesn't think God is trustworthy and not sure who or why he's trying to get us to trust or not to trust.

"Not only can God not be counted on, but life plays out as one cruel joke after another, and then you die. And God is to blame." (loc 1050)

"And then we're quickly forgotten as if we never were, just like we've already forgotten already those who lived and died before us." (loc 1072)

"It's hard to keep trusting God when you see no reason to" (loc 1125)

"the best book to read if you're thinking of becoming an atheist is the Bible." (loc 1681)

"Does Jesus really make a difference or are we better off with a health plan that covers therapy and prescription medications" (loc 1740)

I'm really disappointed. There are some beautiful sentences/passages about trusting God even when things don't make sense but there is just way too much of the negative nihilist thinking as quoted above and more such as evolution, science, archeology and how they all supposedly discredit the Bible. I think the author is trying to challenge the readers' faith to the point of almost demolishing it and the reasons to have faith in the first place. To me this book is obviously agenda driven and the agenda is not to increase people's faith or bring them closer to God. It's okay to doubt and question but it's not okay to mislead and discredit the foundation of people's faith while claiming to be a Christian author and professor. Be honest about what you really believe and don't believe and at least to me it's obvious anyway.

Instead of this book I highly recommend Trusting God by Jerry Bridges because it's on the same topic but much better written and theologically sound.

[Mark Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The gist of this book is that the Bible is not a script God is required to follow. It is full of promises and assurances that God simply doesn't honor, and that we should be far more focused on trusting God rather than expecting Him to make good on His word.

Enns contrasts "right belief" about God with trust. When God does not respond or act in a way that our "correct doctrine" seems to indicate that He should, we get a lesson in trust and learn that trusting God is far more important than the accuracy of biblical doctrine as we understand it.

I read the whole book waiting for the author to reconcile the glaring contradiction here, but he never did. Namely, when trust is the most important aspect to a relationship, how do broken promises facilitate a stronger trust?

The objection here is so simple I'm not sure how it could be missed. In fact, trust is probably the only thing that suffers from broken promises and inaccurate accounts. The first thing to go is trust in the accuracy and relevance of the Bible. The second thing to go is trust in the God that the Bible reveals.

How can the author suggest that even though the Bible can't be taken seriously on matters concerning our origins, its accuracy in transmission, specific promises God makes, etc, our response should be to move closer to God in trust rather than get hung up on these failings? Move closer to Who, exactly? If the book is demonstrably flawed, then the God the book reveals should be taken with a grain of salt as well, shouldn't it?

As an example, Enns writes "Even when life is absurd and only death waits for us at the other end. Even then we still read, “Yes. I get it. I’ve been there. We all get there sooner or later. And when you do, keep on being an Israelite anyway. Fear God and live obediently before God anyway.” Anyway. I don’t say that lightly. It’s hard to keep trusting God when you see no reason to. Yet that is a profound paradox of faith in the book of Ecclesiastes. No matter how deep distrust and disillusionment may be, move toward God in trust anyway."

How does one "move toward" a flawed revelation of God. A better question is *should* we move closer to a flawed revelation of God? We can only approach God to the extent that God has introduced Itself to us. If the holy texts that presume to reveal and introduce us to God range from inaccurate to irrelevant to flat out incorrect, then we have no clear destination to move closer to.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, fresh angle on faith crises among Christians. Because the author begins from his own experience, the book is a rather personal and thoughtful look at what he saw as the driving element of his own crisis: the overwhelming need for intellectual certainty when it came to God, Jesus, and religious life. This is a book about learning to let go of unexamined and dogmatic assumptions about God and the need to be more open and responsive to God and humanity in general. Highly recommended.

[Michael Mayer · Rating 1 out of 5]

A decent explanation of why this author does not subscribe to biblical authority or inerrancy. It would be popular in European schools of higher criticism. In confessional Lutheran circles, not so much.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christians who spend significant time thinking through their faith (and probably many who don’t) are occasionally confronted with serious doubts. Working through those doubts and coming out the other end can be a scary and painful process - not merely because it feels like such a heavy burden, but because doubts like these are not often safe to discuss in a typical evangelical community, where questioning traditional belief systems is often interpreted as a slippery slope, or worse, an attack on the faith itself.

This is where Enns’ book is incredibly strong. I have not read his previous books, so I can’t compare them, but this book feels, at times, like an incredibly personal memoir. And I think what is most helpful about that aspect of this book, is it normalizes the pain an fear that comes from wrestling with these difficult questions that often present themselves in our lives at inconvenient and uninvited times.

Much of this book was so “spot on” that I’m not even going to comment much on it (He recommends replacing the words “faith” and “believe” in our reading of the Bible with the word “trust” - since the concept that is most often being discussed is about trusting a personal God, not merely understanding correct things about that God. I have been doing this for a few years, and have a few other “churchy” words in my Bible that I automatically replace when I’m reading… like “Charity” instead of “Grace”, “Rescue” instead of “Salvation”, etc.)

He made some very compelling arguments about the idea that we are using our Bibles incorrectly. One argument that I found particularly compelling was how he interpreted the book of Job. He pointed out that Job’s friends had a very “Biblical” worldview in their discussions with Job, and that they had a lot of “proof texts” they could have pointed to as evidence that they were right, and that Job’s questioning of God was unrighteous. And yet, at the end of the book, God is angry with Job’s friends “because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has.” (Job 42:7). An so, this example makes an interesting argument against reading the Bible to get “facts” straight about God, so that we can accurately interpret the world around us.

My first thought about this was how the majority of the Jewish leaders were unable to recognize Jesus as the coming Messiah, because they had developed such an inflexible belief system to the point that when God showed up, they didn’t recognize him. Is it not possible that some of us are doing something similar? Might we be holding too tightly to our interpretation of various “proof texts” to the point that if/when God reveals his plan to be different than what we expected, we might not be open to his message?

Enns puts it this way, “What we know, or think we know about God might not be so certain no matter how absolutely certain we think we are. No matter how certain we might even think we have the right to be. And again, that holds true even if our sense of certainty comes from the Bible. Yes, sometimes the biblical writers present God‘s ways in absolute black and white. But even if you are able to quote chapter and verse, don’t count on these portraits of God to work everywhere and every time. The Bible isn’t a Christian owners manual. God remains shrouded in mystery, inaccessible, beyond our mental reach.”

This kind of thinking makes me uncomfortable, because surely there must be things about God that we can know “for certain” if we are to be asked to trust him. But I will concede that perhaps the Protestant infatuation with “correct thinking” has detrimentally conflated “certainty” and “faith”. My favorite quote from this book is, “When holding to correct thinking becomes the center, we have shrunk faith in God to an intellectual exercise, a human enterprise, where differences need to be settled through debate first before faith can get off the ground. A faith that rests on knowing, where you have to ‘know what you believe’ in order to have faith, is disaster upon disaster waiting to happen. It values too highly our mental abilities. All it takes to ruin that kind of faith is a better argument. And there is always a better argument out there somewhere.”

And so, Enns makes a good argument for approaching what we think we know about God with a bit less dogmatism, arguing that there is a greater danger to our faith being rocked by an intellectual argument than there is of falling off of a slippery slope into relativism.

However, where I found his book a bit lacking is that I don’t feel it gave direction for approaching the Bible differently. Telling us that we’ve been approaching God too “intellectually” and instead must focus on “trusting him” is a timely message… but it isn’t very instructive on how we ought to be approaching the Bible. So I found myself with more questions than answers in this regard. And I can’t help but feel like this was by design. He states “Part of my own journey of faith is letting go of knowing first, sorting it all out first, before I commit. For me, part of learning to let go of knowing is to not care how or whether my experiences can fit together in some overarching intellectual structure, where my rational mind remains as the true and final arbiter of what is and isn’t real.”

Struggling to trust God, even when we aren’t convinced we know what he’s like or what he’s up to was a main point, and he makes a good case that many of the Psalmists were angry with God for not coming through in ways they thought he had promised he would… but they landed on trusting him anyway. I agree with this, but I want to know more about how Enns approaches the Bible, and how he determines what portions of the Bible are “non-negotiable”, and which should be held more loosely. His point seems to be that there are things we must be willing to “believe” dogmatically and take a stand on, regardless of our experience, but I don’t recall any explanation on how to determine what those things are (I am guessing he talks more about this in "The Bible Tells Me So" which I will also read... but having not read that first, I have a lot of questions about his view of the Bible from this book alone).

This is actually something I’ve been doing a good deal of thinking about more recently. 1 Corinthians 2:8-16, as well as 1 John 2:27, seem to make the argument that we should get our understanding of truth from a personal interaction with the Spirit, more than relying primarily on our reason and intellect. And Enns accurately points out that “The long Protestant quest to get the Bible right has not led to greater and greater certainty about what the Bible means. Quite the contrary. It has led to a staggering number of different denominations and sub-denominations that disagree sharply about how significant portions of the Bible should be understood. I mean, if the Bible is our source of sure knowledge about God, how do we explain all this diversity? Isn’t the Bible supposed to unify us, rather than divide us?”

And so, like most things, it would seem there needs to be a balancing act. How do we avoid being the kinds of Christians who put all of our “faith” in our intellect, and miss out on the truths that are only obtained through the Spirit? And how do we keep from falling into the other extreme where we “just trust God” regardless of what science and reason prove to be true about our world? It seems to me that God will grant us insight into the things we need to know, perhaps not until we need to know them. In the meantime, we must do the best we can to accurately understand what the Bible says, using all the resources (including our reason and intellect) that God has given us… but at the end having a willingness to hold those conclusions somewhat loosely.

All in all, I really liked this book, and I will probably continue to process it for a good while.

[Simon Wiebe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ein leicht zu lesendes Buch, was ich vermutlich denjenigen empfehlen würde, die nicht wissen, wie man theologisch mit Glaubenszweifel umgehen kann. Das Buch verflechtet alttestamentliche und einige wenige neutestamentliche Perspektiven über den Umgang mit Unsicherheiten des Glaubens (va Hiob, Prediger und die Psalmen) mit den Erfahrungen von Peter Enns.

Das Besondere am Inhalt ist vermutlich nur die Biografie von Enns. Da er eine wichtige Anlaufstelle für Glaubenszweifler geworden ist, gibt das dem Buch seine Relevanz. Ansonsten findet man eigentlich alle Perspektiven auch in anderen Büchern. Angenehm fand ich diesmal, dass er - im Kontrast zu manch anderen Büchern von ihm - nicht so dualistisch in seinem Denken auftritt (entweder bist du ein dogmatisch-starrer Fundamentlist ODER ein aufgeklärter akademisch-denkender Progressiver).