Certainly Not: Part Six

Using an analogy, I argued in the last post that conversation is the best way to respond to Theological Fallibility. So what exactly does it look like to "leave an access door to the foundation" of your Theology? There are two things I would mention.

1. Welcome Dialogue from Different Perspectives

Take any chance you can get to talk to someone of a different faith. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, so why would I spend the rest of my life only talking to people who believe the same thing? As a Christian, I should not be ashamed of the Gospel, I should be going into all the world to make disciples. However, don't miss the blessing that comes from witnessing - dialogue. You can leave that access door open and re-examine your foundation. When people ask you those hard questions about your faith, it's time to perform a little maintenance. Why does God allow evil? Can I trust the Bible? Does the New Testament display antisemitism?

Is dialogue risky? Of course. You could take the "easy" way out, and just seal off your access door - just don't be surprised when nobody wants to come and visit your house.

2. Welcome Books from Controversial Authors

It can be exhausting to read something you don't agree with. Your emotions run high, and you sometimes wish you could just sit down with the author and give them a piece of your mind. However, the attitude which most troubles me is the attitude that says, "I only have something to learn from those who are orthodox (agree with me)." Truth be told, and I'm speaking from personal experience, you can learn a lot from people you don't agree with. Believe it or not, the only smart people in the world are NOT people who believe the same thing as you.

Two words of caution:

First, sin, even false ideas, can be very appealing. In your quest for truth, you must remain committed to it. If you lack wisdom, ask God who gives to all men liberally. Fear God - this is the beginning of wisdom.

Second, I am not suggesting that you must read/watch moral filth in order to be more educated. I made a commitment to my wife to stay faithful to her, I don't need to frequent pornographic websites (for example) in order to "keep the access door open". Don't forget - there is black, gray, and white areas. My commitment to my wife is one area in which I am not ashamed to say I'm, "close-minded".

As I think back about this series, I certainly realize I don't hold all the answers to our Theological Fallibility. There are still lots of unanswered questions in my mind, and dots I have yet to connect. It's funny, a small part of me honestly feels like writing a rebuttal against myself! I've done the best I can to build a foundation, but let's just say I'm leaving the access door open.

Certainly Not: Part Five

The best way to respond to Theological Fallibility, is not blanket uncertainty, or passive humility, or perpetual openness. The best way to respond to Theological Fallibility is, conversation.

I mentioned in my last post that the response of conversation is a sort of "modified openness". To me, the risk of openness is that it lacks a solid foundation. However, the risk of being close-minded is that it leaves the foundation unexamined for large periods of time. Allow me to use an analogy.

I recently purchased a house (actually, the bank purchased a house, and I am now their slave for 30 years). Obviously, my house has a foundation. It's a solid stone/brick foundation with no major cracks, and it passed inspection with flying colors. The foundation of my house is completely sealed off except for a small access door on the south side of the house. Now, I would be an IDIOT if I said to myself, "I've got a good foundation, it's passed inspection, and I don't see any problems, so, I think I'll seal off the access door." Imagine what would happen to my home if I was unable to access the underbelly of my home for 30 years! What a tragedy!

Even though I'm glad my house has a solid foundation, I've already been down there to check things out a half-dozen times since we moved in. Why? Because good houses need maintenance. I know that the "fallibility" of a home requires constant action on my part.

Do you see the connection between houses and Theology? Someone who is perpetually open minded shoots themselves in the foot because they refuse to build a solid foundation on which they may build a house. Someone who is close minded is like the person who seals off the access door to the foundation of their house, thus leaving their foundation to rot. The position of conversation tries to build a foundation (and a good one too), but leaves an access door. This person is willing to go down with a flashlight and perform maintenance on their foundation. Make no mistake, this person has a foundation, they just know that the harsh reality of life requires constant tweaking and improving.
~~~

Part Six of this series will look at the practical outworking of a person who responds to Theological Fallibility with "conversation".

Certainly Not: Part Four

I apologize for my tardiness in continuing my series on "Theological Infallibility". The basic question is this - "How should I respond to the inherent uncertainty that comes with being human while building a Theology?" I mentioned that uncertainty seemed to strong a response, and that humility was more of an attitude than a proactive response.

Another possible response is, "openness" (yes, it's a word). In today's society, if you want to insult someone just call them, "close-minded". You can bet money that everybody who's trying to be somebody is remaining "open" to all the options. But what exactly does it mean to be open. It's a little hard to define.

The idea of being open in your Theology basically means that you're unwilling to "close" the door of your mind and thus become "bias" towards a certain position. Someone who is truly open, won't build a theology based on a solid foundation, because he/she must remain open (free from commitment) even in regards to foundational issues.

However some would argue that the whole idea behind opening your mind is so that you can eventually close it. In other words, you open your mind to all the options, weigh the evidence, and make a decision - case closed (pun intended). Others find virtue in remaining perpetually open to all options, regardless of how strong the evidence points towards something.

There are a lot of things I like about the idea of being open in your Theology. (not to be confused with Open Theism which denies God's ability to know the future) However, being open comes with a lot of risks. I am much more attracted to, and will discuss in the next post, a modified position, which I call - conversation.

Certainly Not: Part Three

If you're just tuning in, I've been talking about what I call, "Theological Fallibility". Basically, the idea is this - we know, due to our imperfect nature, that we must be wrong in some area of our theology (we just don't know which area). So, how do we respond to this troubling theological pickle?

I've already dealt with the response of Uncertainty, so what about the response of Humility? Humility recognizes it's insignificant place among a sea of theological perspectives. Simply among Baptists there can be a wide divergence of views, but when you broaden this out, the artist of Evangelicalism begins painting with even wider brush strokes. Adjust your telescope, and you can see the countless stars of denominations within the galaxy of Protestantism. As your perspective broadens even more, you see the tree of Christendom branching out into Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. As if this wasn't divergent enough, you realize all the above are cheaply categorized as "Christian" and (to the western mind) it's them against Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism...the list goes on and on.

With so MANY different views, how could I possibly claim that I have somehow escaped error, and am a virtual color commentator of the acts of the almighty God (if there is one, says the Atheist). The theologian, pinned between the rock of human fallibility and the hard place of divergent opinion, is driven to his knees. We realize our tiny, insignificant place among such a significant majority.

Thus, humility isn't really a response, it's more of an attitude. It's an attitude taken by somebody who's been put in their place. However, as important as proper perspective, and an attitude of humility is in this task of building a theology - it still doesn't answer the question of how to proactively respond to our theological fallibility. Indeed, we must keep looking for a better way - a way forward.
~~~

Part Four of this series will continue our journey towards finding a proper response to our Theological Fallibility.

Certainly Not: Part Two

So basically, the idea so far is that the imperfect aspect of our humanity demands that we are wrong in some area of our theology. The problem is, we don't know what those areas are, and we'll never reach a perfectly tuned theology. I'm assuming that you're with me up to this point, the area in which we might diverge is in how to respond to this quite troubling realization of our fallible humanity. How should we respond?

There are four (probably more) ways to respond to our "theological fallibility"...

1. Uncertainty
2. Humility
3. Openness
4. Conversation

First, let's look at uncertainty. This response is a glass-half-empty, pessimistic theology. Uncertainty avoids making propositional truth claims (especially metanarratives), and can never fully define with certainty the finer (even essential) points of it's theology. Uncertainty doesn't like an ABC ducks-in-a-row theology, and is skeptical of any matter-of-fact theologian. Uncertainty revels in the mystery of God, and doesn't like to put Him in a box, no matter how over-sized. This type of person openly admits to not having everything figured out - and is perfectly content to keep it that way.

I think this response - blanket uncertainty - fails in it's inability to differentiate between black, gray, and white. For example, I KNOW my wife's name is Emily. I KNOW she's 4' 11''. I KNOW she is an interpreter, and I KNOW that she is (at this moment) sleeping soundly in another part of the house. What may not be as tangible is her love for me, respect of me, and loyalty to me. I know these latter things are true, I just know experientially as opposed to intellectually.

What's interesting to me is that the most certain things in life (e.g. that wall is blue) are the most inconsequential. It is the not-as-certain things which carry the most weight (e.g. does my wife really love me?). But I digress, the point is that there are some things which we can be certain about, and then there are other things which require a bit more caution (duh). Thus, blanket uncertainty is like pulling out a rocket launcher during a rubber band fight - slight over-reaction.
~~~

Part Three will take a look at some other ways to respond to this "theological fallibility" dilemma.

Certainly Not: Part One

I would assume, and I think this is a safe assumption, that if you asked a crowd of about 300 people to raise their hand if they thought something they believed was false - no hands would go up. Nobody thinks something they believe is wrong, otherwise - they wouldn't believe it.

However, if you asked that same group of 300 people to raise their hand if they thought they were perfect, again, not a single hand would go up. So, how do we reconcile these two commonly accepted truths, 1) we aren't perfect AND 2) as far as we know, we don't believe anything that is wrong?

The implication is this: Though I can't pinpoint it exactly, my humanity dictates that I must be categorically wrong in some area or another of my theology/belief system.

When I was a data entry clerk, I entered thousands and thousands of keystrokes into a computer. Common sense tells me that, though I didn't know it at the time, I MUST have made a few mistakes while typing. It's like that with our theology. Our humanity guarantees that we've made a mistake, we just don't know where.

Maybe our source was wrong, maybe we aren't coming at it from the right perspective, maybe we've misinterpreted a passage, maybe their is a textual variant, maybe our presuppositions are getting in the way, maybe we're thinking with wrong categories, maybe there is still more information to be discovered, maybe, maybe, maybe. How are we supposed to build a theology on a bunch of "maybes"?
~~~
Part two of this series will look at four possible responses to this dilemma - Uncertainty, Humility, Openness, and Conversation

Trustworthy Gods

A God worthy of complete trust must exhibit three qualities - Truth, Power, and Love.

In a perfect world, a child learns to trust and obey their parents. A parent has power over their child, teaches their child the truth, and shows unconditional love towards their child. It is these three qualities that lead a child to completely entrust their life into the hands of their parents.

However, each of these qualities, on their own, are not a good reason to trust someone. The government has power over a child, but they don't really love the child like a parent does. A school teacher may tell a child the truth, but a teacher has no real disciplinary power over the child. A child's best friend may show unconditional love, but really isn't yet interested in the truth, and has no power over him. Only when these three qualities - Truth, Power, Love - combine do we find it sensible for complete, absolute trust.

Just as a child entrusts their life to a parent, so too we must entrust our soul to God. But, not just any God - only a trustworthy God - a God who is Truthful, Powerful, and Loving. Power alone isn't enough to solicit trust, as even demonic activity can be quite powerful. A miracle alone is a poor reason to trust in something. If Christ had merely performed a few signs and wonders - it would not be enough to garner faith.

If Christ had only been a teacher of great truths, this too would be insufficient. Many different religious systems contain elements of truth about life, and have practical wisdom for it's followers. Just because someone tells you the truth doesn't mean you should trust them with your soul. If they have no power over you, and/or they don't love you - it renders the truth they tell you virtually meaningless - at least as far as your eternity is concerned.

Finally, if Christ had only exhibited a Mother Theresa-ish love, it would not have been enough. Cults are notorious for their relentless, welcoming love of new converts, but cults are decidely lacking in the truth department. In Christ, all three elements merge together, and beckon us to offer Him our trust. He proved His power over creation and death, He taught the truth about Man and God, and He demonstrated ultimate love by taking on the form of a man and allowing Himself to be crucified on a cross. It is for these reasons that I can comfortably trust Him.

Core

Several years ago, while at Bethany Camp, I met Dr. Charles Colton (senior pastor of the Panama Baptist Church in western New York State) and had the privilege of discussing the "sine qua non" of Christianity with him. Dr. Colton was very pleasant to dialogue with, and I enjoyed our discussion immensely. I recently had the opportunity to read Dr. Colton's book (published a year or so after our discussion), Core Christianity. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and, though I don't agree with Dr. Colton on every point, I highly recommend it.

Word Games

This past Sunday I had the opportunity to preach on I John 2:12-14 at The Gathering.

The ending of verse 14 says, "I have written to you young people, because you are strong, and the Word of God abides in you, and you have conquered the evil one."

I asked the question, "What did John mean by the phrase, 'the Word of God'?" In the sermon, I answered the question in relatively broad terms. The following is some of my expanded thoughts on the subject.
~~~~~

What did John mean by the phrase, "the Word of God?"

Obviously, these believers did not have the complete Bible, so to what is John referring? For certain, he is referring to the Jewish Scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. Some Christians might have had access (or have known someone with access) to a copy of the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the OT.

As for the NT, it is possible that they had one of the synoptic Gospels. If we assume Mark was written c. 45 AD, that gives about 45 years for it to circulate, and possibly have gotten into the hands of John's audience. Matthew and Luke, written c. 70 AD (depending on your view), would have only had roughly 20 years. If you date Matthew and Luke in the 80's, it would be even more difficult for John's readers to have access to them. It is also possible that they had a small collection of two or three of Paul's epistles (written in the 50's and 60's). However, even if we assume the best possible scenario - that they had access to one gospel, and some Pauline epistles - we must remember that literacy rates were much lower, and copies of the scriptures were very, very few.

That said, there was another body of teaching that would have been passed on orally - the Kerygma. Kerygma is a term that means, "preaching, or proclamation". Kerygma is used to refer to the body of truth proclaimed by the early apostles about Christ, and the Christian message. Some of the elements of the Kerygma would have included, key points of Christ's earthly ministry; that Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again, and was seen by many witnesses; and a proclamation of salvation through Christ. (SEE: I Corinthians 15:1-8; Acts 2:22-38; Acts 4:8-12; Acts 10:34-43; Acts 13:23-39) In short, the kerygma is the apostolic proclamation of salvation through Jesus Christ.

To sum up, when John uses the phrase, 'Word of God' he was referring to the OT, possibly one or two books in the NT, and the Kerygma - the apostolic teaching about Christ.

There is still another aspect that I didn't get into during the sermon. If John's readers had access to some NT books, would they have even viewed them as canonical at this point? In other words, would they themselves have viewed Mark, for example, as the Word of God in 90 AD?

Another question, is it possible that when John used the term, "Word of God", he was referring to a gift of prophetic revelation? That is, did the readers of I John really did have the Word of God abiding\residing in them? In I John 2:20 it says, "Nevertheless you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.", skip to verse 27, "Now as for you, the anointing that you received from him resides (same grk word as v.14) in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, it is true and is not a lie. Just as it has taught you, you reside in him." The context of these verses is a warning against false teachers. Teachers who may have claimed some type of elite secret knowledge about Christ. In this type of context, the anointing seems to be aiding in the discernment process - discerning between false teaching about Christ, and correct teaching about Christ. Thus, it isn't certain that by, "word of God", John was speaking about an inner prophetic gift. Even if this were the case, this does not negate the definition of "Word of God" given above (OT, parts of NT, and kerygma), it nearly expands the definition. Any genuine "Word of God" via prophecy from within, would have to conform with the OT, NT, and apostolic teaching (Kerygma).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?