It was recently said by a friend:
If you spend your time bound up in theology and certain religious schools of thought you'll never be loose enough for [the] Holy Spirit to teach you Himself.
The purpose of systematic theology is to provide a framework for interpretation that makes sense of text that at times seem to create paradoxes and contradictions. A person's view of God very powerfully influences this discussion. If you believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then you would have to conclude that some views of God and scripture, views that necessarily detract from those attributes, are distortions at best of the truth. There a number of assumptions that all of us bring to the table. I love being called closed minded when a lack of discipline is being equated with openness. Who is more open minded: the person who takes scripture seriously and expects the Holy Spirit to teach about Christ, or the person who believes in revelations outside of scripture and then charges the first person with a lack of openness, thereby becoming guilty of their own accusation?
The notion of Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone runs off to the corner with their Bible and interprets it any way they please then comes back to the table with whatever interpretation they were inspired to concoct. There are whole epistles about the qualifications of teachers. We are expected to have teachers. That is how the Holy Spirit works, through the preached Word and the Sacraments. Christianity is not an experience; Christianity is a set of facts external to the person made clear by hearing the Word and believed because the Holy Spirit gave that person the gift of belief.
Let us look for a moment at building a 5000 piece puzzle from the point of view of systemic theology vs the point of view of liberalism. The systematic theologian starts from the box top of the puzzle with a general idea of what the puzzle is supposed to depict. Next, there is a separation of pieces into edges and middle, the edges defining the limits or Law. After the edges are constructed, the middle pieces are further separated into pieces with similar colors or patterns. Such grouping allows for construction of areas or doctrines. Finally, when all of the larger patterns are put in place, the leftover smaller pieces are put into place, completing the puzzle. Most of us never finish the puzzle. But that's OK, as long as we understand the picture on the box top.
The liberal approaches the puzzle in a different way. Rules have no purpose or meaning. There are no doctrines that are sacrosanct. After a quick glance at the box top, the liberal dumps the puzzle on the table and treats it like a Rorschach diagram, telling us what he sees or feels that the puzzle is depicting. He might pick up individual pieces and talk about how this piece or that piece proves his interpretation. He might be very convincing at this tactic. At the end, the liberal will have told a different tale of what the box top reveals. There may some similarities. Some of the words may match. But on the Last Day, the picture of Redemptive History will be very different.
Can a liberal be a Christian? Absolutely, but it is much harder to get a vision of the box top when he spends his time telling himself that his vision of the box top is the box top. Better to let the Author of the puzzle tell you what the picture is, and trust in His revelation.
This comment required editing, but I am posting the rest of it.
ReplyDeleteYour view would be unarguably correct if our Christian experience were a puzzle to be solved with a single picture that we all perceive as the correct conclusion at the end of the day.
My own limited experience traveling around the world and trying out a number of different churches and even faiths is that the Christian life is more akin to a swift, broad river. The banks, the grade, the sinuosity, and the bed are the doctrinal basis of our faith- the historical truth of Christ's life, the doctrine of atonement, the nature of Original Sin, and all rest are what make this river a river. These things we have in common and you shouldn't find any disagreement on their import or meaning.
However, within the banks of that river, the water itself changes immensely from place to place and time to time. Seeing the spring floods and calm eddies of the fall, you would be hard pressed to call it the same river, yet it is- every bit of water is still flowing to the sea with the same purpose and end.
I've had conversations and shared bible study with Nigerian and Chinese nationals and was at times hard pressed to call it a discussion about the same faith except for those basic tenants. Like the different parts of a river, the differences of language, culture, and personal life experience made the gulfs between us too immense to cross successfully, but the basic historical facts of our shared faith remained. For me, Aslan says it best when he tells the boy and his horse that 'no one is told any story except for their own' and we would do well to not judge others by our own experiences.
Your Christian walk has very obviously led you to identify with the conservative movement but not even Machen would argue that conservatism is the only way of viewing The Christian experience.
Machen says explicitly that "we do not mean, in insisting upon the doctrinal basis of Christianity, that all points of doctrine are equally important. It is perfectly possible for Christian fellowship to be maintained despite differences of opinion."
The idea that not all doctrinal issues are equally important is true also of Biblical passages. This is not to say that some issues are not worth a fight. Mechan also said that it is only the important issues that cause discussion. It is quite easy to agree on the peripheral matters.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, without addressing your river too directly, I would say that doctrine is not determined by place and time. Doctrine is determined by Scripture. Interpretations are certainly affected by place and time. Perhaps that is mere semantics in your mind, but I find your metaphor difficult to use.
Imagine that God has a perfect mental image of the box top of my puzzle. Rome has painted an image of the same view. Luther painted an image. Finney sketched an image. Picasso painted an image and sold it to Wesley. All of these images depict the same thing, but not all are as clear a representation of God's mental image. If we know what the image is supposed to be, we can try to come as close as possible to a clear picture.
The problem is that most Evangelicals still think that Rome stopped being a church, even though their doctrine is morphing back to Rome. Finney, as clear a heretic even by Rome's standards as there can be, is revered as the greatest Evangelical in the modern west. Wesley after his turn away from Reformed doctrine was still at least Christian. Luther went back to the text and started over. Augustine was as close as he could see to the Apostolic preaching, and so his works resemble Augustine the most. Luther wanted his church to be called the Pauline way. These were the great thinkers of the past who shape the modern conversation.
Following up on your cultural analysis, Scripture and doctrine should be independent of culture, and because of this should be applicable in any culture. Yes, I understand that this is not always the case, but that is the benefit of grounding scripture and doctrine in the historical Christian claims.
As I have said often, quoting many others, even Calvinists don't think you have to be a Calvinist for salvation. They do believe that there is a core group of doctrines worth the fight.
Peace.