The Organ of Meaning

As I read and learn more and more about the history of the basic branches of the Protestant church I find that the pattern of too-hard - too-soft - just-right in almost every run down of their distinctives and doctrines. There are issues of the “real presence” in communion, baptism (both child and believer’s), church political structure and its interaction with the secular politics, defense of the doctrines (or dogmas), the interpretation of the Bible, the nature of God, the nature of salvation and election… I find truth and different kinds of “missing it” in all of them.

Am I Goldilocks with my theology? Will I find the high Papa Church always too big, and hot but with the right firmness? Will the Mama church always be too soft and cold, but the right size? And the infantile church “just right”? And will I find myself thrown out of the house altogether?

Maybe the metaphor of the story breaks down around here - finding the extremes too much but comfort somewhere in the middle. It’s as if I’m looking for the medium sized, hard and cold… and not all of them go with the same system (Papa, Mama, Baby)…

Is it that I just find myself uncomfortable in every house but still welcomed… as if the bears welcomed Miss Locks into their home to stay.

[1/19/08]

This question and prayer came after reading a portion of the history of the Protestant Reformation where Luther actually had someone executed for preaching a differing understanding of baptism than himself…

Is there an example of anyone in the scriptures who died because of bad doctrine on par with a bad understanding of baptism (or less)? I know not of even one! For pride; for lack of pursuit of God; for disobedience and dishonor of God; for a sin in action or condition that is not confessed? Yes, yes, yes, yes. For ignoring God’s Word - yes. For blasphemy - yes. For heretical action - yes. For heretical words - none that I know of. Killing for worldview, for belief or for understandings does not fall in line with any definition of biblical - then, how can any judgment be leveled against a heretic or theological opponent?! For, all righteous judgment is a judgment that can (at some degree) be taken to judgment unto death… and indeed it will on that great and terrible day.

[1/10/08]

Man! It’s been a while since the last time I wrote for you fine people. A lot has gone on since April 3. The semester has ended, family visited, friends engaged, earthquakes (here and around the world), flooding (here and around the world)… a lot.

I am affected by all of those things. I have been praying for the tragedies and celebrating with the good things. But, I mostly write here when I’m processing things that are on my mind. This is one of those times for sure.

On May 7 a number of influential leaders within the Evangelical Movement within American Christianity released a document they have termed “an Evangelical Manifesto.” Over the past week and a half there has been a lot of buzz about it in the “blogosphere” (I hate that word).

I had read the summary (PDF) that they had posted on the site and liked what it had to say so last night I took the time to read the entirety of the declaration, and I must say that I like it.

The content of the document addresses a number of issues that are used to define what it means to be an Evangelical Christian. These definitions are sometimes just defined in themselves but more often defined in light of what we (yes, I am definitely one of them) are not, it is done simply by saying so. In my reading of the manifesto, it comes across as specific and forceful but respectful of those who would disagree.

The thing that I have found the most encouraging is the fact that many of the issues and conclusions that have been settled upon are the same things that I have wrestled with and landed on.

1. “Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.”
2. “First, to be Evangelical is to hold a belief that is also a devotion.”
3. “Second, Evangelical belief and devotion is expressed as much in our worship and in our deeds as in our creeds.”
4. “Third, Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable movement”
5. “The Evangelical message, “good news” by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative.
6. “Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.”
7. “Our second major concern is the reformation of our behavior… We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior.”
8. “We call humbly but clearly for a restoration of the Evangelical reforming
   principle…”
9. “We call all who follow Jesus to keep his commandment and love one another, to be true to our unity in him that underlies all lesser differences…”
10. “We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics…”
11. “We call for a more complete understanding of discipleship that applies faith with integrity to every calling and sphere of life, the secular as well as the spiritual…”
12. “Above all, we remind ourselves that if we would recommend the Good News of Jesus to others, we must first be shaped by that Good News ourselves…”
13. “We must find a new understanding of our place in public life… we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class, tribe, or national identity.”
14. “In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square.”
15. “Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for
    people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith.”
16. “e see two equal and opposite errors to avoid: coercive secularism on one side… and religious extremism…”
17. ” We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth. We all believe that Jesus’ Good News of justice for the whole world was promoted, not by a conqueror’s power and sword…”
18. “We do not see insults and attacks on our faith as “offensive” and “blasphemous” in a manner to be defended by law, but as part of the cost of our discipleship that we are to bear without complaint or victim-playing.”
19. On the other hand, we repudiate all who believe that different values are simply relative to different cultures, and who therefore refuse to allow anyone to judge anyone else or any other culture.”
20. “We respect the right to be wrong. But we also insist that the principle of “the right to believe anything” does not lead to the conclusion that “anything anyone believes is right.” Rather, it means that respect for differences based on conscience can also mean a necessary debate over differences conducted with respect.”

These are some of the statements that I believe define the content of the document very well. If you have any interest in the other 20 pages that surround them, if this sounds very different from what you believe Evangelicals to be, please take the opportunity to read this. You may understand us - you may understand me - better.

The PDF is available at EvangelicalManifesto.com.

How is it that the Bible seems to claim this? Don’t get me wrong, I really do believe in the Bible as the Word of God.

Spurgeon writes this morning:

Be wise and attend to the obeying, and let Christ manage the providing. Come and survey your Father’s storehouse, and ask whether he will let you starve while he has laid up so great an abundance in his garner? Look at his heart of mercy; see if that can ever prove unkind! Look at his inscrutable wisdom; see if that will ever be at fault. Above all, look up to Jesus Christ your Intercessor, and ask yourself, while he pleads, can your Father deal ungraciously with you? If he remembers even sparrows, will he forget one of the least of his poor children? “Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he will sustain thee. He will never suffer the righteous to be moved.”

Right. But, someone in Ethiopia in the 80s or someone else in the course of history must have been a devout follower of the Living God and still starved to death.

I do understand that these passages, the ones that can be “proven” wrong in some specific cases are not being said in a sense that it’s an unbreakable rule and way of God’s ruling of earth. It is, perhaps, the proverbial exception that proves the rule. Perhaps.

One of the things that I’ve been pondering recently is the threads of the Western Protestant tradition that, while on the whole good, are not part of the Church Universal. The main one being the assumption that the Bible is a book to be read and understood on a one-by-one personal level; really this is a generally new (renewed?) understanding to the Scriptures. I can’t help but accept that for most of history the peoples who have followed the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Jesus have not had personal copies of the Scriptures to read and study in a personal way - they were read on the weekend at the Temple, Synagogue or Ecclesia.

While there is no question in my mind that much, if not all, of the Christian Bible has a personal application and message, it seems doubtful to me that that is the exclusive (or even the primary) audience. Deuteronomy was read to all of the Hebrews before the entered the promised land. Josiah read the Book of the Law to all of Jerusalem when it was recovered. Nehemiah read the Law before all of the people when they were dedicating the city again. The Epistles were mostly written to communities of Christians, with a very small portion written to individual people. The primary application and intention of much of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures seems to be to the community of the followers of God at large, with the individual application to follow close behind.

I guess that individual interpretation can’t be removed from the equation though. It seems dangerous to me to leave it exclusively up to the institution of the Church, whether it be a denomination or to local leaders - we have to look no further than the history of the Roman Catholic Church or to the Judaism of Christ’s time where the ecclesiastical leaders’ claim to executive interpretation led to the abuse and ignorance of the people of the laity. Even when it’s just a local gathering, when the pastor or teacher speaks authoritatively it needs to be taken, examined and “chewed through” by the congregation so that error can be confronted by the church on the whole and so that the teacher can be corrected by those who care for him or her.

Maybe I answered my own question. God does provide for the communities who follow him at large; there are exceptions, but He still doesn’t do anything capriciously and fully owns our sorrows and our pain when He allows them to occur.

Once again, I am indebted to the wisdom and knowledge of Wayne Grudem.

This past week I had the opportunity to sit down with a student at Bowie who threw out some questions about the Trinity that I had a hard time answering. Honestly, I am okay with my faith not being rational, I don’t believe that any worldview is completely rational (people who think that you are completely rational - keep asking “Why?” to your belief system and you will eventually get to circular reasoning), but at the same time I want to be fully informed in my faith and have a need for it to be completely internally consistent.

There are things that I’ve pondered deep in the recesses of my ENTP brain that have never completely come together that reading the chapter on the Trinity in Grudem’s Systematic Theology has helped me more fully synthesize (my brain really is like a computer that is doing something on the screen, but running programs in the background - it’s constantly working on something even if it’s not apparent).

When we realize that the New Testament authors generally use the name “God” (Gk. theos) to refer to God the Father and the name “Lord” (Gk. kyrios) to refer to God the Son, then it is clear that there is another trinitarian expression in 1 Corinthians 12:4–6: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.”

Similarly, the last verse of 2 Corinthians is trinitarian in its expression: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). We see the three persons
mentioned separately in Ephesians 4:4–6 as well: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

All three persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the opening sentence of 1 Peter: “According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be
sprinkled with his blood” (1 Peter 1:2 NASB). And in Jude 20–21, we read: “But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”

I have, for a long time, wondered if the New Testament writers (particularly Paul) were purposeful in that way of speaking of the Divinity. It has seemed to me that in contemporary Christan culture (whether it’s “Christian” at a heart level or in some nominal way) is specifically referring to God the Father when they say “God” even when God is all three persons of the Trinity in orthodox Christian doctrine. Even in my own prayers (verbally, in my journal and even in my silent prayers) I feel that I am addressing different members of the Trinity when I use “Lord”, “God”, and “LORD” - Jesus, the Father, and the whole of the Trinity in that order.

Thanks Wayne, for helping me understand more… again.