. . . has been posted, by yours truly, on the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter site.
Tag: Doctrines
-
Example of Doing Dialogue
I comment from time to time on dialogue and diversity (most recently here), a pair of topics that I regard as particularly important. It’s important amongst Christians because we have much in common, but we often focus on difference. It’s important in general, because we do share a home planet, however much we might think some other folks come from interstellar distances.
A couple of the requirements that I believe are important for effective dialogue is knowing what you believe yourself, along with a willingness to search out both the common ground and the major differences, and then express those politely.
This morning I read a post on the evangelical outpost, titled What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation. Now what precisely interested me about that article, seeing as I’m neither Catholic (nor even ex-Catholic) nor am I evangelical? It was an excellent demonstration of precisely what I’m talking about in terms of dialogue.
I recommend going and reading it, for content, yes, but especially for method.
-
Coops Series on the Atonement
Coops is doing a series on the atonement. He says:
Being the seasoned theologian and all (sarcastic), I thought it would be a fantastic topic to get to know better – especially since I’ve heard quite a bit about it in liberal and emergent circles lately. It may be good to really get my head around such an amazing concept (as best as I can, anyway).
Yep! Sounds like a good topic to me. I’ll be reading.
-
Diversity, Tent Ropes, and Tent Pegs
I have mentioned before that I’ve been writing some of the devotionals for my wife’s devotional list, and yesterday I wrote one that relates closely to some things I’ve written here about tolerance for diversity and yet having identity and anchor points. It’s titled Extend Ropes, Strengthen Stakes.
For those who may be interested, Jody’s devotional goes out every weekday morning. It used to be an e-mail list, but now it’s a blog with the option to subscribe via e-mail. Being a blog, it now also allows RSS subscriptions. We keep it clear of administrative and personal things, we go very light on the advertising material in the sidebar, and likely no more than once a quarter we might mention an event where she is speaking or a book by one or the other of us, so it’s a pretty safe subscription. You get just a devotional in the morning. Speaking of diversity, as fair warning, it’s distinctively Christian in tone.
-
Christian Reconciliation Carnival #1
The first ever Christian Reconciation Blog Carnival is up and running at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. Check it out!
-
Decisive Verse, Decisive Choice
I was having a conversation with a friend who is a United Methodist pastor a few years back. He was a well educated man with a doctoral degree and Arminian to the core. We got onto the subject of predestination vs free will, and he quoted the following to me (though not in my own translation, which I present here):
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often have I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you did not want to! — Matthew 23:37
“It’s really very simple,” he said to me. “When Jesus said that he would have, but didn’t because they wouldn’t, he was either lying, or he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth, they had free will, they had a choice. I choose to believe that Jesus was telling the truth!”
Good for him!
On another occasion, I was talking to a convinced Calvinist who was a Hebrew student. I had commented that I didn’t really find the doctrine of predestination very attractive. Of course, that isn’t necessarily a good argument against it. He said that he didn’t find it very attractive either, but he thought it was scriptural, so he believed it. He too had a text to quote:
28 We know that all things work together for goodu for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. — Romans 8:28-30 (NRSV)
“That’s what the Bible says,” he told me, “And I believe it!” Good for him too!
Now I’m aware of the many arguments that can swirl around these texts, and of many ways of reconciling the various positions, but I simply want to comment briefly on each person’s approach. Each of these men was a pastor. Each was determined to follow the teachings of scripture as fully as possible, each of them would have agreed on the broad outlines and most of the details of how to interpret the Bible, and yet they held essentially opposite views on this point.
Arminians, of course, claim to believe in predestination–they just interpret it differently. To a Calvinist, it appears that they don’t really believe in it at all. Calvininsts claim to believe in freewill, and even have an article on it in the Westminster Confessions (it’s Article IX). But Arminians read that article and find that it isn’t adequate to the texts that teach human responsibility and free will.
At another time I was organizing a youth event in which we would have pastors and teachers from several churches and denominations get together to teach high school age young people to defend their faith. There were enormous differences in many areas of theology, from creation and evolution, to church standards. Our staff included United Methodists, Presbyterian Church in America, and Assemblies of God along with a couple of independents. But one issue was brought up to me as one that required guidance on how to answer–Calvinism vs. Arminianism. And indeed students did ask.
My guidance at the time was simply to say that there are texts in the Bible that appear to teach predestination and other texts that appear to teach freewill, and all our disagreements result from the way we combine those texts. The various teachers were quite willing to go with that.
And I think that’s a very good answer. There are substantial investments both of personality and theology in each of these positions. What we hear with each of these texts is impacted heavily by what we bring to it. I believe that the scriptures do not settle this issue, but rather simply assert both divine sovereignty and human choice and responsibility. But that’s very hard for us to live with, so we each feel the need to explain how they work together, and I’m no different from the rest on this point. I’m such a convinced Arminian that I’m no more than a step or so from being Pelagian. Of course, a “proper” Arminian might object to the idea that I could be a convinced Arminian and nonetheless stray into Pelagianism, but I’ll have to leave that for another discussion. Perhaps I’m not as Arminian as I suppose.
But still when I look at it practically, I see a great deal of similarity in how Calvinists and Arminians view the Christian life, even if our theological structure is so different. In exploring with my Calvinist Hebrew student, whom I taught one-on-one for a year, I found that when we went to apply things to real life, we reached very similar conclusions. Discipleship, evangelism, preaching of salvation, even social action were areas on which we could very often agree. We did have some differences on social action that were not the result of the Calvinist Arminian divide, but that is also another topic. Our underlying doctrinal structure had less impact on how we lived and how we did ministry than anyone could expect.
I recall attending a lecture by John Blanchard, a Presbyterian evangelist. Now many Arminians have told me that they are shocked that there are such things as Presbyterian evangelists, though Blanchard is hardly alone. Someone asked him a question during the question and answer time. “How can you believe in predestination and also be an evangelist?” I suspect the questioner was a mischiveous Presbyterian rather than a Methodist interloper such as myself. He said this: “Predestination is a doctrine, and I believe it. Evangelism is a command and I obey it.” (Quoted from memory.) In practical terms, how can I argue with that?
I have two points right now. First, how we develop our doctrinal structure on this and many other points depends on what text(s) we make the key to our theological structure. Each side can find proof-texts, and each can find whole proof chapters. One of my favorites is Jeremiah 18, and it’s also a favorite of many of my Calvinist brethren. We just look at different parts of the chapter! Second, our theological framework is not necessarily the most decisive factor in our diligence and effectiveness as disciples. If we can overlook some theological disagreements, we can often find common ground in obeying the commands of Jesus. I would suggest that a great deal of Christian division could be quieted by emphasizing those two points.
-
Doctrinal Statements and Bible Use
A friend e-mailed me about a post which caught my attention. It seems that a blogger wanted to use the feed of the ESV Bible from the official web site, but found that the terms of service required him to accept a doctrinal statement first (relevant links are in his entry).
Personally, I think that the blogger, Kevin Wilson, was pretty nice about the whole thing. He’s correct, of course, that they have the right to make any terms of service they wish. But the fact that they do have a doctrinal statement in their terms of service does lead me to ask something about the priority of doctrine over scripture–or the reverse.
Personally, I’m convinced that getting people to read the Bible for themselves is a good thing. For one thing, there’s nothing like exposure to actual Bible passages in context to convince one that inerrancy isn’t a very viable approach. (Yes, I know that intelligent, educated people agree with me. They’ll say that I’m wrong, and I say that they’re wrong, which is as it should be.) Further, however, I do believe that the Holy Spirit works through the study of scripture in reaching individual minds. So I’m not even content with Wilson’s acceptance that one might not want the service used on a site that mocked the Bible.
What better benefit could a site have than to have multiple links back to their own work from sites that opposed them? Who do they want to have reading their Bible? Perhaps this is the true confirmation of what I keep hearing from some defenders of the ESV–it was not really designed to be understood by unchurched people, so the doctrinal statement makes sure that readers will know the language into which the ESV is translated.
But I suspect it’s more likely simply that this is an attack of random exclusivism. The site provides a translation for people who agree with them. Surely people who don’t believe in inerrancy and the several other doctrines they list will not even be able to comprehend the Bible anyhow, so what good would it be to them?
Personally, I’m going to keep advocating easily read translations that are made as widely available as possible. It just seems like the Christ-like thing to do.
This leads me to ask something about the priority of doctrine over scripture.
-
Being United Methodist: Identity and Purpose
One of the problems with having a sign in front of your church, and particularly a denominational identity, is that it produces certain expectations in people who may considering entering your property and visiting your church for an event or a worship service. Now some of you may not think this is a problem–you want an identity. That’s good! But consider these question: Is the expectation created by your label realistic? Is it what people will find when they enter? Are you willing to stand by that purpose even if they choose another church?
This discussion could apply to any denomination, I think, and also to many non-denominational congregations. But my experience is with entering a United Methodist local church. I’ve discussed parts of this experience several times before, but rather than link to a scattered set of sources, let me just highlight the relevant points of my own experience.
I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and completed my MA degree in Biblical Languages at the Andrews University Graduate School in conjunction with the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary. Then I left the SDA church and all churches for 12 years. I started my path back into the church at a United Methodist congregation. One of the first things I asked for was a definitive statement of United Methodist doctrine. I wanted to know what I was getting into. So the pastor of that church gave me a copy of the United Methodist discipline. Don’t groan! Considering the way I presented my question to him, he had no choice.
I read the early pages of the discipline, the doctrinal standards and the explanations. I questioned elements of the social principles, but based on that reading I thought I could get along in a United Methodist congregation. I was naive enough to believe that Methodists actually had some idea of what was contained in their own doctrinal statement, but more on that in a moment.
I attended two different United Methodist congregations off and on, and also went to small group Bible studies in both. When I had decided to rejoin the church, and specifically one of those two congregations I went to the pastors and discussed it. The first pastor told me that I would be welcome in his church no matter what. I explained that while I had been baptized, I had been out of the church for some years and wanted to acknowledge that. “We don’t care about that,” he said. “We just want you to enjoy our fellowship.” There was no discussion of my beliefs in any way. I’m not sure he had ever heard me affirm that I believed in God, though he knew I read Greek. I can testify that the two are not equivalent.
The second pastor sat down and asked me what I believed about Jesus. What a difference! We had a serious conversation. I even contested points with him. But at the end he knew that I did, in fact, believe in Jesus and was ready to accept me into membership. I joined the second congregation.
I suspect that the first pastor did not want to offend me by suggesting anything in particular I had to do. But by doing so he made me ask myself why I would join his congregation. What was the purpose? If it was merely to “enjoy fellowship” that wasn’t sufficient to me. By being open to all, I think he made the church seem to be unimportant and of little use.
Even in the church I did join, however, there was disappointment. I read about the doctrine of Christian perfection, one of those Wesleyan doctrines with which I have a certain amount of trouble. I read Wesley’s A Plain Account of Christian Perfection amongst other things in order to clarify what Wesley taught on the matter. When I discussed that with the pastor he asked me to teach a class for the entire church on the topic. Now I had grown up in the SDA church and heard about John Wesley all my life. Imagine my amazement when I found that not one single member in that class was even aware that there was a doctrine of Christian perfection and that it was listed in the doctrinal standards of their denomination.
I can’t really speak of what goes on in the broader denomination. I’m a small picture man. But I do see this in congregations. If you try to be all things to all people, you can easily wind up being nothing at all. Those who know me and read any of what I write will know that I’m not calling for tense, lengthy, doctrinal standards. But I am calling for knowing our identity and purpose at the congregational level. United Methodists should go out to that cross and flame symbol and ask themselves whether it is false labeling. Are people going to experience the the incaranational love and revelation of Jesus Christ and the fire of the Holy Spirit in your church? Is it an expectation of all or most of the members? Don’t suspect me of forcing a particular definition of each of these elements. I’m not. What I’m wondering is whether you could answer that question, whether you’re church member or pastor, in an intelligible way. If I was joining your church, would you say that you just wanted me to enjoy your fellowship, or would there be expectations of service, an identity to assume, and a purpose to support?
My pastor (Gonzalez UMC) when he arrived at the beginning of a building program for a “family life center,” made certain that the name was changed to “community life center.” The name makes a difference, he told me. We need to be a church that reaches out to our community and makes a difference. There’s one piece of the identity. If you don’t want to reach the community, you’re going to have many moments of discomfort at our church. It gets more detailed than that, but I’m not writing to tell you what your purpose should be in detail.
What I’m trying to say here is that when we get so open that we lose identity, we also give up any reason for anyone to enthusiastically support us. People don’t support an organization with any enthusiasm because of what it’s not. They support it for what it is. If you don’t know the purpose of your church, whether you’re church leader, member, or pastor, you will find it difficult to grow.
As a final note, I think this is an area in which Christian liberals and moderates have failed in particular. We too often either define ourselves, or fail to define ourselves by what we are not, and then try to keep from offending anyone on any side.
On the one hand I can define myself as a person who does not believe in the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, who does not accept a literal seven day creation week, who rejects penal substitutionary atonement as the true meaning of the atonement, and who rejects male only church leadership. But what a dull litany that is!
I’d prefer to be known as a person who believes that God has gifted us through his Spirit with the testimony of persons and communities of faith who have experienced him in real and special ways, who believes that God works mightily through the reliable fundamental laws of the universe he created to produce near-infinite variety, who sees the atonement as so broad and deep that it requires many metaphors just to scratch the surface, and who believes that God gifts all of his children in wonderful ways for a variety of roles in the church.
And frankly, I’m happy with that latter identity. If you want to openly discuss those issues, welcome to fun and fellowship. But if you want to put down those who don’t believe the Bible is inerrant, or demand that all recognize just one metaphor of atonement, or make the women of the church feel as if they are not merely different than, but less than–well, go find another fellowship! I will, if I find myself in a congregation that wants to behave in that way.
It’s not a matter of writing people out of the kingdom of heaven, or refusing to discuss with them or deal with them. It’s a matter of bringing together a congregation that can produce a coherent witness to the love of God in their lives.
(I wrote some on a related topic on the Pacesetters Bible School news blog.)
-
Is Waking Up Always Good?
John Meunier (Trouble Enough) has been reading William Abraham’s book Waking From Doctrinal Amnesia and making a few comments. Since the Wesleyan Quadrilateral was one of the things that attracted me to the United Methodist Church in the first place, I’m not sure that this is an amnesia I’d like us to wake up from.
John has a few interesting comments in two posts: Why Not Divorce and The Incarnation and the Ad Council. Sorry John, I don’t have an answer to your main question in this one. I have heard so many forms of church organization taught as scriptural that I’m beginning to think that the most unscriptural thing to do is to claim that the structure of your congregation or denomination is “scriptural.”
Both posts are worth reading.
-
The Wayne Grudem Interview – Reflections
I’ve been responding at some length to Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem. He has now posted his Highlights and Reflections and I’m not going to respond point by point to that as it simply deals with issues I’ve responded to earlier.
I think probably the best question to ask at this point is why on earth I took the time to respond to this entire interview. While Dr. Wayne Grudem is not completely at the opposite end of the spectrum from where I am, he’s far enough from me that it is often hard to engage. I disagree with him on Biblical inerrancy, on women in church leadership, and on the atonement. Just what do we have to talk about?