The Church has always been marked (and marred) by divisions. It is just the way things go when you bring strong-willed human beings together. We have disagreed on the place of free-will as it interacts with God's sovereignty, the meaning of communion, how baptisms are to be performed, when (if ever) Christ is coming back, if people will be magically taken into the air with only their clothes remaining in a heap, how the Church is to relate to the state, what place human works have in salvation, the nature of Christ as deity... and the list goes on. People even disagree on the nature of how important these issues are in the believer's every day life. As long as there is sin there will be disagreements. On this side of eternity we will not all reach consensus on every issue.
In the last hundred years the Church has argued over each of these issues in some form or another. But we have entered into a new argument that has never been so compelling as it has been in this latest century. The question is in regards to the place of theology in the life of the believer, especially in contrast to how one lives their life. The argument is broken down into two camps: Orthodoxy (right thinking) and Orthopraxi (right living). The issue here is what comes first in the life of the Christian, is it knowledge or action?
Traditionally the orthopraxi view has been held by the liberal church as it emerged in the late 19th, early 20th century. The goal was to save Christianity from itself by removing the need for the supernatural elements of the faith and making it more modern and post-Darwin-rationalism friendly. Christianity was less of a faith than a morality code. Miracles and supernatural claims were down-graded to morality stories about living a better life on earth. Is Jesus God? Was He born of a virgin? Did Jonah really get eaten by a giant sea creature? Did the sea really split at Moses' command? It doesn't matter. What matters is the lessons the Bible is trying to teach, i.e. live a good life, treat others as you would want to be treated, practice charity, etc. What mattered for the liberal church was how you lived. Whether Jesus was your Lord and Savior in whom you placed your faith as the substitution for the punishment you deserved for sin really didn't matter. A Christian was someone who looked to Christ as their moral teacher.
This viewpoint has endured. More than a few Church leaders at least flirt with this view, if not entirely embracing it (McKlaren more or less, Bell although he refuses to actually commit to anything this is the obvious end to his theological statements, Frank Shaeffer, et al). And because their writings are so popular many people follow them and give new life to a movement that more or less got stamped out after World War Two (its hard to believe in the potential goodness of man after seeing six millions Jews killed, not to mention Stalin killing millions of his own people, the Raping of Nankin, the firebombing of Dresden, or the US dropping two atomic bombs).
Orthodoxy tells us that right thinking must inform right action. What one believes about Christ is the most important issue in any individuals life. Orthodoxy holds to all the supernatural elements, including eternity. Eternity is one of the most important issues. Each Christian is conscious of their eternal destination as a place either of eternal communion with God or eternal separation from Him. You can be a very kind person, give your money to charity, adopt pets from the shelter, eat only free-range chicken, vote at every election, and never touch alcohol but that has no impact on your eternity. All people have sinned, this sin separates each individual from the Holy God who can have no part with sin. In God's economy there must be a punishment for sin. Jesus came to take that punishment. If you believe that He died for your sins and rose again conquering sin and death and confess Him as Lord you are saved. All the right actions in the world don't make you a Christian. Belief in Christ makes you a Christian. All the goodness that may follow after this confession of faith does not make an individual any more or less of a Christian. Rather that goodness is a rightful response to the Holy God who has given us everything, and the outworking of the Holy Spirit inside of us who transforms us into the character of God. First you must believe, right living must flow from that belief.
I, along with the historical Church, accept the orthodox perspective as the Biblical and correct approach to the life of faith. This is what has informed the stance that pastors are meant to be guardians of the gate rather than ambassadors. First we must be certain that our congregation knows what it means to be Christian, and allow that to inform the way they live their lives.
Because of this view we are to love the teaching of Scripture (at the risk of seeming pretentious I'd like to call this "theology"), teach them, ands defend them. How this makes us look is secondary to our job to protect the Gospel from being watered down or compromised. But this is always to be done in the loving spirit of the Gospel, informed by who Christ is, not by our own ambitions or desires. We cannot forget Christ.
This is a warning I was reminded of as I heard a sermon preached on Revelation 2. At the beginning of Revelation 2 Jesus is delivering a letter to the Ephesian church. Jesus praise and congratulates them for their steadfastness in identifying and removing false teachers and remaining steadfast in the truth. These were people who knew their theology, how to identify those who are wrong, and how to endure in their faith and not be led astray. These are people who would have agreed with my last essay, and this one, wholeheartedly; and that causes me to pause. Because in the next sentence Jesus calls them out because, even as they were doing all those things they made one huge mistake, they forgot their first love. They defended and held to their theological convictions but forgot about Jesus whom they had loved and who loved them. This was such an intense mistake that Jesus was prepared to dismiss them entirely. Because they were theologians without heart they were no use to the Kingdom and were in danger of being more of a harm then help.
Its hard to argue that the church heeded this warning. The church is now a sub-group, an underground movement that exists in defiance of their government, hardly the influential church it was then. I worry that my emphasis on right thinking might encourage people to become heartless theologians who know all the right answers but none of that knowledge affects the way they live, the way they interact with people, the way they pray, the way they look at a sunset, the way they read their Bibles, the way they look at a new born baby, or their spouse. Theology can bring us closer to Christ, it can encourage and strengthen us. It can inform our prayer lives, inspire us to share the Gospel, move our hearts during worship, etc. But we must test ourselves. Is our pursuit of right thinking an end in and of itself? Or does it come from a heart to draw closer to the God of the universe who has created us and desires to be in communion with us? Theology without heart is a dangerous thing. Theology that begins with and is informed by Christ, who He is and what He has done for us, can change the world.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Guardians of the Gate or Ambassadors to the Nations?
When discussing the influence and ministry of pastors with other Christians the critique I often hear of Church leaders is that they are too quick to cause division and give critique. It is not the place of pastors, they claim (either directly or through inference), to denounce others or speak against them. Pastors should be bringing together, rather than tearing apart.
Most recently the issue came up when Rob Bell's new book had its first press release and video advertisement. The video is classic pretentious Bell. I've never been a fan of Bell's as I'm sure he'll never be a fan of mine. The video raises the question of how one gets to Heaven, even saying that the Gospel message that Christ dying for our sins to appease the righteous demand of God for a punishment for sin means that Jesus is saving us from God, and how poorly that reflects on the Father. There is talk of an art show and Gandhi in there, he does his classic hand gestures and long breathy pauses, someone mixes paints, and a camera pans through a room nonsensically.
After the video and press release came out a few evangelical leaders spoke out against it. Some wrote blogs and essays about the danger of what Rob Bell was saying. John Piper sent out a message on his twitter account saying goodbye to Rob Bell (dismissing him from the evangelical world one would assume). Others wrote blog posts and essays in defense of Rob Bell, or at least against those who spoke against him, saying their criticism is premature and we should wait until the book comes out to judge where Rob Bell stands.
The criticism surrounding the criticism is what I find most interesting and is not unique to this one instance. I often hear people criticizing evangelical leaders for being too critical, too quick to speak against those who are theologically against them.
The question these people raise, perhaps without really knowing it is: what is the responsibility of the pastor? Is he the guardian of the gate or is he the the ambassador to the nations? Is he responsible to protect the Church (and his local church) from false teachings, heresies, and all distractions from the Biblical faith or is he supposed to cast the widest net of appeal so as to attract as many people as possible and hurt as few as possible?
The argument would seem to be that our pastors are supposed to be ambassadors. They should make the faith as appealing as possible so as to bring in as many people into the doors of the church as possible and discourage as few people as possible from wanting to leave. When a pastor speaks against another evangelical leader or group or individual he creates divisions. Divisions separate which is the opposite intention of what the church and pastor are supposed to be doing. Churches make fewer and fewer theological distinctions, talk less and less about controversial issues, and never say negative things about anyone because we don't want to offend anyone.
This reflects our postmodern age and proclivities. We need people in the seats, not at home thinking all Christians are narrow minded and judgemental. But there are those (I amongst them) who would argue the opposite. Pastors are not meant to cast the widest net of appeal. They are not ambassadors. They are the guardians of the gate. They are in charge of keeping watch over their flock (believers who are members of their congregation). They are not here to make Christianity look cool (because its not cool!). They are hear to guide and instruct people in righteousness and Biblical living. The pastor's job is to provide right teaching and declare false teaching as such. If a person is teaching against the Scriptures, leading people away from Godliness, profaning the name of God, it is the pastor's primary job to tell his congregation and teach them why its wrong. If a man is claiming to be an evangelical while teaching things that go against Scripture the pastor should be the first to denounce that man's teachings and teach the truth. The pastor's job is to protect his flock from heresy and guide towards truth, whatever the consequences. So if Rob Bell even hints at the idea of universalism (that all people go to heaven-or at least all "good" people-regardless of their faith in Christ) then pastors should be putting their people on notice to at least be on guard about that, if not outrightly saying he's wrong. If they don't they are neglecting their responsibilities and are a disservice to the Church rather than a help.
Some people claim this kind of thinking makes the Church look bad, and maybe at times it does (especially done with an arrogant heart). But I am convinced that if we didn't do it than we look even worse. We become hypocrites who have no foundation at all. If we claim to believe in the truth as revealed in Scripture and build our lives upon that and then someone shows up and says something that contradicts Scripture and we accept it we look wishy-washy and spineless. If we say "Christ says that 'no one comes to the Father except through me'" but then turn around and say "and you can also come to Him by living a good life, feeling guilty sometimes about sinning, giving some money to the poor, etc." We are foundationless. We have no appeal at all.
One of the things we forget, I think, is how theology has been formed. Theology was not formed in a vacuum or by council (despite what the revered historian*Dan Brown says). The development of theology (at least up into the 1800s) came from a defensive stance. Theology was formed from division-division from heresy. Orthodoxy was always assumed until someone came and taught a heresy that forced the Church to put orthodox teaching on the subject into writing. Hence the Church having many documents titled "Against [some heretic]". Theology has always been reactive. The Reformation was a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's many theological errors. Luther wrote many documents against those he viewed as wrong and teaching against Scripture.
Is this always pretty? No! Do we want division for divisions sake? Not at all. Sometimes these divisions are done in pride, sometimes in anger. I'm not saying they are always great. I am saying that we should know our heritage and understand that when men are teaching against Scripture it has been the Church's role to stand up and speak against it. If we do not we validate it with silence.
The issue at stake is the souls of men and women. There is nothing more important than that. If people don't want to come to church because we are correctly handling Scripture I can live with that. If they are attracted to our churches because we look like the world and never make a stand against anything and never bring about eternal change in anyones' lives I can't live with that. We are working to bring people to understand the amazing love that Christ has for us, that saves us from the dominating effect of sin in our lives. The consequence of failing in this end, the cost of allowing people to be misled while we stand silent is beyond dire.
The pastoral office is always to be held with humility and gentleness. Confrontation is not to be sought out or desired. People who build us haystack towers so that they can knock them back to the ground and set them on fire are quite dangerous. Creating controversy from nothing is neither Biblical nor wise. It is in fact contrary to Christian character. But that does not mean we shy away from confrontation, either. We proclaim and defend the truth. The cost is too high not to. Heresies must be called out and corrected, never tolerated.
Pastors are meant to guard the gate, protecting the sheep from the wolves outside. If there is a wolf trying to break through he is fought off, if we find a wolf within the gates he is to be quickly removed. To do anything less would be to abandon one's duties for the favor of man.
*he says snarkily.
Most recently the issue came up when Rob Bell's new book had its first press release and video advertisement. The video is classic pretentious Bell. I've never been a fan of Bell's as I'm sure he'll never be a fan of mine. The video raises the question of how one gets to Heaven, even saying that the Gospel message that Christ dying for our sins to appease the righteous demand of God for a punishment for sin means that Jesus is saving us from God, and how poorly that reflects on the Father. There is talk of an art show and Gandhi in there, he does his classic hand gestures and long breathy pauses, someone mixes paints, and a camera pans through a room nonsensically.
After the video and press release came out a few evangelical leaders spoke out against it. Some wrote blogs and essays about the danger of what Rob Bell was saying. John Piper sent out a message on his twitter account saying goodbye to Rob Bell (dismissing him from the evangelical world one would assume). Others wrote blog posts and essays in defense of Rob Bell, or at least against those who spoke against him, saying their criticism is premature and we should wait until the book comes out to judge where Rob Bell stands.
The criticism surrounding the criticism is what I find most interesting and is not unique to this one instance. I often hear people criticizing evangelical leaders for being too critical, too quick to speak against those who are theologically against them.
The question these people raise, perhaps without really knowing it is: what is the responsibility of the pastor? Is he the guardian of the gate or is he the the ambassador to the nations? Is he responsible to protect the Church (and his local church) from false teachings, heresies, and all distractions from the Biblical faith or is he supposed to cast the widest net of appeal so as to attract as many people as possible and hurt as few as possible?
The argument would seem to be that our pastors are supposed to be ambassadors. They should make the faith as appealing as possible so as to bring in as many people into the doors of the church as possible and discourage as few people as possible from wanting to leave. When a pastor speaks against another evangelical leader or group or individual he creates divisions. Divisions separate which is the opposite intention of what the church and pastor are supposed to be doing. Churches make fewer and fewer theological distinctions, talk less and less about controversial issues, and never say negative things about anyone because we don't want to offend anyone.
This reflects our postmodern age and proclivities. We need people in the seats, not at home thinking all Christians are narrow minded and judgemental. But there are those (I amongst them) who would argue the opposite. Pastors are not meant to cast the widest net of appeal. They are not ambassadors. They are the guardians of the gate. They are in charge of keeping watch over their flock (believers who are members of their congregation). They are not here to make Christianity look cool (because its not cool!). They are hear to guide and instruct people in righteousness and Biblical living. The pastor's job is to provide right teaching and declare false teaching as such. If a person is teaching against the Scriptures, leading people away from Godliness, profaning the name of God, it is the pastor's primary job to tell his congregation and teach them why its wrong. If a man is claiming to be an evangelical while teaching things that go against Scripture the pastor should be the first to denounce that man's teachings and teach the truth. The pastor's job is to protect his flock from heresy and guide towards truth, whatever the consequences. So if Rob Bell even hints at the idea of universalism (that all people go to heaven-or at least all "good" people-regardless of their faith in Christ) then pastors should be putting their people on notice to at least be on guard about that, if not outrightly saying he's wrong. If they don't they are neglecting their responsibilities and are a disservice to the Church rather than a help.
Some people claim this kind of thinking makes the Church look bad, and maybe at times it does (especially done with an arrogant heart). But I am convinced that if we didn't do it than we look even worse. We become hypocrites who have no foundation at all. If we claim to believe in the truth as revealed in Scripture and build our lives upon that and then someone shows up and says something that contradicts Scripture and we accept it we look wishy-washy and spineless. If we say "Christ says that 'no one comes to the Father except through me'" but then turn around and say "and you can also come to Him by living a good life, feeling guilty sometimes about sinning, giving some money to the poor, etc." We are foundationless. We have no appeal at all.
One of the things we forget, I think, is how theology has been formed. Theology was not formed in a vacuum or by council (despite what the revered historian*Dan Brown says). The development of theology (at least up into the 1800s) came from a defensive stance. Theology was formed from division-division from heresy. Orthodoxy was always assumed until someone came and taught a heresy that forced the Church to put orthodox teaching on the subject into writing. Hence the Church having many documents titled "Against [some heretic]". Theology has always been reactive. The Reformation was a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's many theological errors. Luther wrote many documents against those he viewed as wrong and teaching against Scripture.
Is this always pretty? No! Do we want division for divisions sake? Not at all. Sometimes these divisions are done in pride, sometimes in anger. I'm not saying they are always great. I am saying that we should know our heritage and understand that when men are teaching against Scripture it has been the Church's role to stand up and speak against it. If we do not we validate it with silence.
The issue at stake is the souls of men and women. There is nothing more important than that. If people don't want to come to church because we are correctly handling Scripture I can live with that. If they are attracted to our churches because we look like the world and never make a stand against anything and never bring about eternal change in anyones' lives I can't live with that. We are working to bring people to understand the amazing love that Christ has for us, that saves us from the dominating effect of sin in our lives. The consequence of failing in this end, the cost of allowing people to be misled while we stand silent is beyond dire.
The pastoral office is always to be held with humility and gentleness. Confrontation is not to be sought out or desired. People who build us haystack towers so that they can knock them back to the ground and set them on fire are quite dangerous. Creating controversy from nothing is neither Biblical nor wise. It is in fact contrary to Christian character. But that does not mean we shy away from confrontation, either. We proclaim and defend the truth. The cost is too high not to. Heresies must be called out and corrected, never tolerated.
Pastors are meant to guard the gate, protecting the sheep from the wolves outside. If there is a wolf trying to break through he is fought off, if we find a wolf within the gates he is to be quickly removed. To do anything less would be to abandon one's duties for the favor of man.
*he says snarkily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)