click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Getting Theologically Humiliated
by C Michael PattonJanuary 12th, 2009
70 Comments
No one likes to be told they are wrong. Correction and critique are things we go out of our way to avoid. Those who can ask the tough questions about your life—probing deep when they suspect some spiritual sickness—are not often not welcome friends. We don’t pick up the phone when they call. We avoid them at work. We don’t return their emails. Why? Because they can tell us the skinny about our life and we don’t want to hear it. We are prideful people who, like the priest, choose to walk far around the problems in our life, and we ask others to do the same.
As problematic as this mentality is with regards to things having to do with moral integrity, I believe that the problem is just as severe with regards to theological integrity.
Everyone hates to be critiqued. I remember going into seminary with a good deal of pride and arrogance. I did not recognize it at the time, but now that I look back now I can see it. I remember in my first preaching course, I could not wait to get in front of the other students and the professor and deliver my masterpiece. They would call me “Michael the Golden Mouth.” Oh yeah . . . recognition was coming. But my teacher did not see things the way my mind’s-eye had envisioned. I remember I preached for fifteen minutes on the Psalms. Afterwords I had to sit down and listen to my professor rip me to shreds in front of twenty other seminary students who gawked in fear as they knew they were next. Here is the type of critique we came to expect.
- “Where did you come up with that? That is not in the text. Good sermon, wrong text.”
- “You selectively used that translation because it supported your view.”
- “That was completely boring. Your audience will be thinking about the football game within two minutes.”
- “You need to go home and come back and tell us what the text really means.”
This hurt. Many students want to drop out of seminary after their first evaluation. We have to have post-sermon-support-groups encouraging others that this still may be God’s call for them.
Writing an exegetical paper in the New Testament department was no less fearful. Upon turning it in the comments would come back:
- “What makes you think you can use Strong’s for your word study? Don’t you know it is outdated.”
- “You took this completely out of context.”
- “You cannot use a John MacArthur commentary for an exegetical. It is a preaching commentary!”
- “Did you check your sources or did you get this from secondary sources?”
- “How did you come up with that interpretation when the entire history of the church has failed to see it?”
In the theology department the damage got worse:
- “You completely misrepresented your opponent. Rewrite this paper.”
- “You are selectively quoting Luther. Did you read him yourself or get this from someone else?”
- “Your prejudice is guiding your beliefs. Who’s to say that your mom and dad were right?”
- “Your certainty level on this is uncalled for. You may be right, but you have to hold this in tension.”
Concerning these critiques—concerning these beatings I took—there is something you should know—most of the time I was theologically correct in my conclusions. I thought that this is all that mattered. Hey, if I did not do the word study right, who cares? As long as I came to the right answer—wasn’t this acceptable? Isn’t the right answer what we ultimately are trying to find? This was not good enough! I learned that how you come to your conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves. In the end, I was humiliated so that I could be humbled.
In just about every discipline of thought, you have accountability. If you are a doctor, you cannot just develop and prescribe a new medicine because your mother told you all your life that it worked. If you do, you will go to jail. As a scientist, your works will be scrutinized by your peers in published journals. As a physicist, you cannot invent a new law of nature based upon a dream or vision. As a judge, you cannot judge people based upon subjective opinions or a deep inner peace. The constitution prevents this. If you are a soldier, you cannot disregard your superior and come up with a new battle plan because you were enlightened by a new book you read on fighting techniques. In all these areas there is an accountability structure that provides discipline and guards against novelty and abuse. Within each exists a system of checks and balances that, for the most part, provides integrity. In other words, you cannot just do or believe anything. If you violate these constraints, you will be humiliated and humbled.
Sadly we have an epidemic of theological discipline in the church today. People think that they can believe and teach anything based upon a subjective experience or a provision of hope. This epidemic is caused due to lack of theological accountability. We don’t think we need people to tell us we are wrong. We don’t have any system of checks and balances; in fact, we often avoid them. We think that if we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit, we have license. There is no way to be humiliated so that we can be humbled.
Because of this lack of discipline we have people out there believing and teaching based upon wild hairs. They are prescribing spiritual medicine that they invented. Sadly the average person is the spiritual test rat. I wonder what the “faith-is-a-force” people did when they first got the idea that faith was a force that we could control. Did they consult anyone about this? Did they have theological advisers? Did they have someone who would tell them that they was wrong? Did they consult church history or biblical exegetes? Did they even have a method for validating their beliefs?
Integrity of belief is essential for every Christian. We all need trustworthy sources to which we can turn to test our beliefs. We need to have learned how to handle the Scriptures properly. We need to learn not only the right beliefs, but how to come to the right beliefs the right way. We all need to be humbled . . . often. We even need to get the snot kicked out every once in a while. We need battle scars of discipline. We need to have friendships with people who will tell us we are in left field. We need to fear discipline enough that we will think twice about believing or teaching something novel.
In the early church Christians went through a rigorous discipleship process (notice the connection between disciple and discipline). Once you became a Christian you went through a three year boot camp. You were called a catechumen, derived from the Greek katechein, meaning “to teach” or instruct.” For three years your theology was shaped and scrutinized by superiors in the church. Did you get that? Three years. During this time your superior(s) mentored you through the faith. We see this illustrated in ancient church documents such as the Apostolic Traditions, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Canons of Hippolytus, and the Testamentum Domini. The church would not accept a new convert to the faith without this rigorous discipleship process. They took serious Christ’s command to “make disciples.”
From the Didascalia Apostolorum we read, “When the heathen desire and promise to repent, saying ‘We believe,’ we receive them into the congregation so that they may hear the word, but do not receive them into communion until the receive they seal and are fully initiated” (2.39).
This initiation did not come for three full years. Why? For two reasons. 1) The early church did not assume that a profession of faith was sincere, having seen many who once professed and then turned away either in doctrine or in practice. 2) They wanted to ensure the health and stability of the new converts belief.
Cyril of Jerusalem reflects on the importance of theological stability: “Let me compare the catechizing to a building. Unless we methodically bind and joint the whole structure together, we shall have leaks and dry rot, and all our previous exertions will be wasted” (Prochatechesis 11). This training provided a fail-safe that Christianity would be represented correctly and that the “believers” would truly believe, knowing what they were getting themselves into. In other words, they gave them an opportunity not to believe so that they might truly believe.
This process may seem extreme to us today, but consider where we are at. Once one becomes a Christian, the most they normally receive is a four week membership class that deals less with theology and more with church polity. But for the most part they don’t even get this. We tell them to ask Christ into their heart then we send them on their way with our blessing. In reality, we don’t know what has been created. At best, we have just placed a new born baby on the streets telling them to be filled and happy.
Is it any wonder that the church has such an epidemic for theological integrity? Should we really expect any different?
Who are you accountable to for your beliefs? When you get a wild hair about some theological issue, where do you turn? Better, where does this wild hair come from and who gave you the right to have a wild hair. “Wild.” Look it up in the dictionary and you will see that it means “undisciplined, unruly, or lawless.”
People need serious theological training. People need discipline. People need to be humiliated theologically. People need to know that they cannot do whatever they want with Christian belief and expect there to be so many lab rats available. If you have not been trained theologically, you need to be. This does not mean that you have read a book or two on theology, but you need to be in some sort of program that systematically, from beginning to end, takes you through the Christian faith, teaching you not only what to think and believe, but how to think and believe. We all need to be critiqued, disciplined, and humbled. We need more spiritual black eyes. We also need to be prepared to do the same with others.
Proverbs 11:14 Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.
Proverbs 13:10 By insolence comes nothing but strife, but with those who take advice is wisdom.
Proverbs 19:20 Listen to counsel and accept discipline, That you may be wise the rest of your days.
Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life.
Proverbs 13:18 Poverty and shame will come to him who neglects discipline, But he who regards reproof will be honored.
Proverbs 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.
Similar Posts:
- The Essential Christian Library
- Seminary Grads (Recent) . . . Need Your Help
- A Couple of Important Announcements
- What is the Biggest Problem in Evangelicalism?
- Support Our Ministry this Year-End
Loading ...
70 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
John 8:31-32(ESV)
If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples
*————————————————*
As I think about it … it seems like we need BOTH a knowledge of Jesus’(/God’s) word – “Theology?”- (above passage) and we also need to act a certain way (below passage).
The NIV renders the “abide” aspect from the above passage as “remain faithful” and the “in my word” concept as “to my teachings” so I see both the “act a certain way” and the “know what God communicates” ideas in one very important verse.
Sometimes I think the practice of dividing scriptures into small “chunks” (verses) may have done some damage. For instance in the case of John 8:31-32, seems to me if we didn’t have a verse break interupttion there, maybe we would look at what is said in what we label as verse 32 a bit differently. Could it be that the truth is not actually guaranteed to set us free if we don’t act consistently with Jesus’s teachings?
-SOIL
*————————————————*
Matthew 25:45-46(ESV)
…And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. …
… ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Our Bible Study group is using your course on Soteriology, following your workbook and DVDs, Dr. Grudem’s book, Systematic Theology, and Professor Olson’s book, The Mosaic of Christian Belief. I, and the rest of the group, have benefitted greatly from this study and its use is likely to expand to other study groups.
I read your argument for why Reclaiming the Mind Ministries exists and agree wholeheartedly. I have long believed that Christians should go through a doctrinal boot camp, or catechism, whether they are children or adults. The lack of understanding about Christian doctrine in the Church is abominable. Unfortunately I must include myself in this category. Doctrinal study (your program) is the antidote to the epidemic of theological decay that you referred to in your article. Thanks for making your program available, it is sorely needed today.
SDG
dgp
Like or Dislike:
0
Great post—have it featured on my blog.
http://wwwwritingbetweensundays.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0
thanks so much David! (and others!) Sorry I have not been able to keep up with many of the comments.
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
“I totally disagree about praxis flowing from a correct theology”
I said “as long as it was believed.” Belief is the necessary element. But faith must have content, and that content must be orthodox. I know you don’t like that word much, but what other recourse do we have?
When you say give a cup of water to someone in the name of Jesus, who is Jesus? What did he do? Why are you giving it? Self-righteousness? An inner drive? A guilt? Or a gratefulness to our God for what he has done? If the latter, what has he done.
Friend, you can’t escape the necessity of sound theology. It is not the end, but it is the ONLY means to the end.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I’m not meaning to downplay that sound theology is necessary, so if it sounds that way then let me apologize. I just think that many “reformed” individuals go at it completely the wrong way and divorce theology from praxis b/c they see things pertaining to praxis as “works.” I know we’ve discussed orthodoxy before, and I’m still clueless as to how we decide what’s orthodox. From what I’ve been taught, it’s generally gathering together your favorite church history theologians and seeing where they agree. However, as I said earlier, we can just as easily do this with many heresies since many of them have endured the test of time.
What I’m trying to communicate is that we should emphasize Bible and inductive study more so than theology (How to read literature, background issues, etc) only if theology is taken in the systematic sense.
When you give a cup of water to someone in the name of Jesus, you don’t only give it for a gratefulness to our God for what he has done, but also and equally because of the love you have for that neighbor (just a minor quibble
). As far as your point in that paragraph, you’re essentially speaking about the basics. We can have people read Grudem and tell them about it til the cows come home, but showing it to them inductively as derived from the text is in my opinion the most powerful way to do it. Catechesis shouldn’t involve merely indoctrination through pounding proof-texts into one’s head and memorizing propositions. Catechesis should involve a rigorous study of the text alongside a rigorous inductive teaching of said text in order to show people why and how we believe, not just what we believe.
Like I said before, I agree with many of your statements, I would just disagree with your methodologies and emphases I suppose. You try to play it off like you’re in the minority and everybody is going off the deep end in these “novel” teachings that depart from historical orthodoxy…well, I have hardly ever encountered such people and believe they’re most certainly in the minority outside the higher-critical academy. What I generally see is a bunch of borderline fundamentalists who believe everything their pastor tells them…which is generally some type of reformed theology. You call this sound…I don’t. It has been my experience that this “sound” theology does not lead to praxis, but I have often witnessed the exact opposite (since, of course, praxis is a work…just like faith I suppose if that even makes any logical sense). That’s my trouble, sound theology does not mean Calvinism or reformed confessions of the faith, nor does it mean creeds.
In any case, I totally support your work and love what you do. I wish I had access to your stuff when I was growing up and I have recommended your program to my church back in Tennessee and some of my friends. I see your program as coming alongside the church and helping her out, while what I’m arguing for here is what should be happening inside the church. Trust me, I have nothing against your ministry and think it’s wonderful, so please don’t get that indication. Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
EricW: “We can use as allegories what the NT includes as allegories (including the one I just mentioned), but beyond that we have to go with original authorial intent.”
Well, this is you applying YOUR hermeneutic to the text. One that I might add is less biblically defensible than using the hermeneutic of the authors.
Given that the NT authors show evidence of using extra-biblical material, another hermeneutic is that one may use allegories when the tradition of the community supports that application. This is obviously anathema to protestants, but its an approach used throughout the church fathers. e.g. seeing Mary as an archetype of the ark of the covenant.
You can’t attack the hermeneutic, because the bible doesn’t specify the hermeneutic, and in fact gives implicit support to it all over the place.
Like or Dislike:
0
You are right that behaviour is more important than belief, but you are incorrect that we therefore need to focus on behaviour. The idea that focusing on orthopraxy leads to to orthopraxy is debatable and I think mistaken.
This is the point of Michael’s post (the theme of which I think is good, though have some minor quibbles). Don’t teach orthodoxy to get a knowledgeable self-righteous Pharisee, teach it so people have right behaviour for the right reasons.
The reason many people care so much for orthodoxy is because they care so much for orthopraxy.
Starting with a theologically questionable passionate may be good material to mold. But if their theological direction doesn’t change or they do not wish to believe correct doctrine, then I am not certain they are better than the comparison.
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge,/
nor to be hasty and miss the way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter:
I SUPPORT using the NT as an example of how to read the Old Testament. I was giving an example of what I was once told when I made the suggestion that perhaps the Book of Hebrews was given to us to show us how to read the Old Testament. That’s when I was read the 11th Commandment: “Thou Shalt Only Use the Grammatical-Historical Method” and told that even if the NT authors were inspired to do such things, we could not imitate them.
Have you ever read Beyond the Obvious by James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty? Though it’s not the same as what I’m saying, it is a similar argument.
And, yes, I understand quite well how the church fathers read the Old Testament and incorporated such understandings into the church services. I attended Orthodox services for more than 3 years. You can’t help but hear the Bible with new ears when doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0
So timely within today’s atmosphere of “feelings” and cheap grace.
John Gerstner’s, “Every man must be a theologian” is recommended reading.
Blessings
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke, you said, What I’m trying to communicate is that we should emphasize Bible and inductive study more so than theology (How to read literature, background issues, etc) only if theology is taken in the systematic sense.
That’s exactly right and that is where sound theology, followed by praxis comes from: good, inductive Bible study!
You also said, I’m not meaning to downplay that sound theology is necessary, so if it sounds that way then let me apologize. I just think that many “reformed” individuals go at it completely the wrong way and divorce theology from praxis b/c they see things pertaining to praxis as “works.”.
Maybe in your circle. I don’t know too many reformed folks who would downplay the works part. Works are necessary as a demonstration of the indwelling faith but certainly not the cause of our justification which is purely by the grace of God who gives the gifts of faith and repentance. Don’t lump all us reformed folk in the same category. (Just a little clarity).
Like or Dislike:
0
You said “This does not mean that you have read a book or two on theology, but you need to be in some sort of program that systematically, from beginning to end, takes you through the Christian faith, teaching you not only what to think and believe, but how to think and believe.”
If you are going to teach me what and how to believe, then why do I need to think.
I was with you until this statement.
Love you all
Like or Dislike:
0
My question is–outside the building what percentage of “right orthodoxy” folks are involved in “right praxy”? My expereince, unlike it seems Steven Long above, is that those who think they “believe correctly” have an attitude that it’s up to the unbeliever to come to them (come in their buildings) and then they’ll help them “get their life together”, first or course, by helping them believe the correct things.
Like or Dislike:
0
Minnowspeaks, I don’t believe that’s our case at all. I happen to believe evangelism is still important and vital to the kingdom. God may have predestined some but how they’re brought to him is THROUGH us. But once they’ve been saved, THEN it’s our job to DISCIPLE them. We weren’t called in the great commission to just go out and get people saved, we were called to make DISCIPLES. We are to disciple them, not just give them the basics and then run off saying, “good luck with that.” Helping them along with proper doctrine and theology is the second half of the deal.
Like or Dislike:
0
As an aside, I can’t recall how many times the subplot of victory in adversity or severe discipline is used in motion pictures, and is invigorating to see. For instance, the special forces team that volunteers for the grueling “hell week” and emerges strong and equipped for battle; or there’s the young, doe-eyed boy who wants to be a great Kung Fu warrior and so is immersed into a nightmarish discipline for both body and soul which test him in every venue – only to see him emerge the glorious warrior for . . .
Wait a minute! Didn’t Paul tell us that spiritual exercise is better than the physical?
“We fight not against flesh and blood . . .”, so forget the bone-crushing kicks.
But effective fighting and ministry require discipline and work. Why not be joyful in the greater results we can obtain in our spiritual correction and refinement?
As any good athlete knows, if you want to be good at what you do, you have to take the coach’s mantle.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dwight–I only have my experience to go on regarding the practices of people in the building. Our Church prides themselves on being internationally connected and doing great “mission” work. Yet less then 10% of our budget is for missions and conferences. And, guess which part of those two options takes the bigger chunk of the funding. Our food bank is totally volunteer. We’re even talking about making them relocate because we “need” to rent out their part of the building. And I am not exactly talking about evangelism–making converts–I’m talking about serving the least of these without an overt agenda of getting them to be financially contributing members. Am I sounding too cynical? Sorry. I know there are wonderful healthy Bodies out there who are making a difference in their communities and encouraging indiviual members to do the same. I just haven’t seen many of them.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] of belief C. Michael Patton writes about the importance of theology for lay Christians: Integrity of belief is essential for every Christian. We all need trustworthy sources to which we [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
To adapt the words of Professor Kingsfield from Paper Chase: You come here with a skull full of mush, and if you survive you’ll come out THINKING like a theologian. One of things I remember being told at DTS was that I was learning to “think theologically.”
I have a very distinct memory of preaching class critique. I was put in preaching class way too early (as I see it now) because I came in with lots of Greek already. Gung ho as I was I had a weekend between college and seminary. Not so smart that. So I was in preaching class my first Fall semester. I remember the day after one sermon, and it was lousy, getting pretty severely critiqued. My natural response was to defend my decisions. But in an instant it hit me (a word of knowledge…. ;->) that having my work torn apart was an incredibly valuably learning and growing experience.
I think about that day from time to time, particularly to remind myself that people who disagree with me, who irritate me with their views perhaps, are incredibly valuable, because there is something they see that I don’t see. God arranged Christ’s body intentionally so that no one part would have EVERYTHING (can’t say I have no need of you) and that includes theological and spiritual insight. Those who irk us (sometimes) we have greater need of.
Like or Dislike:
0
AMEN! Thanks for the comment Marv.
reo
Like or Dislike:
0
re CMP #26: “I have dealt with way too many people who have never been grounded in the faith, yet did missions and worked with the poor all their lives. In the end, many times these people, if not theologically educated and discipled, end up in a state of spiritual bankruptcy, finding no solid motive for their actions.
Theology first, then practice will follow necessarily if belief is present. If it is not, I don’t care how much “good” they do, their soul is still in a damned state.”
Good theology is quite irrelevant to potential eventual spiritual bankruptcy and the eternal damend state o a soul. If they are elected as individuals from before the creation of the universe, then they will end up in the new heaven and earth with the rest of the saints regardless of the depth of their theology. Furthermore, their perseverance is assured regardless of whether they have crumby, wrong, or unorthodox theology. If they are not elected, it is again not relevant how much theology they know and how much of it is orthodox. Consequently, when someone gets to heaven (speaking in a shorthand about eternity), its much better form them to have done a slew of good works in Jesus name than for them to have had a good thologiy and theological justification for their works, because they only rewards talked about in the Bible are rewards fro good works, not rewards for good theology.
Even preaching or teaching wrong or unorthodox won’t make a speck of difference . anyone sho is individually elect will make a confession of Jesus and have eternal perserverance.
Now, I’m not saying that it is good to have poor theology, or that poor theology is better than good theology, nor am I saying that we shouldn’t bother to study theology. Only that from a Calvinist standpoint theology is irrelevant to being saved or perservering. Neither Jesus nor James made in depth theology a prerequisite for doing good works. Once one confesses Jesus as the risen saviour, you’re over the hump theologically, and giving cups of water, clothing and feeding and sheltering the poor, visitning prisoners, taking care of orphans and widows, telling the truth, is not complicated.
And in case I wasn’t clear, according to Calvin, a soul is never in a damned state becasue of poor or wrong theology, but only because they weren’t elect.
regards,
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2