Why am I in Nairobi? If you cut those of us who are a part of the Credo House we will bleed discipleship. Several months ago a man named Scott Werner started coming into the Credo House. Scott is over an 8 state regional area for Compassion International. His job is to connect churches with the work Compassion is doing around the world.

As the weeks went by Scott and I had conversations about all sorts of topics. One day we started talking about discipleship. I’ve sponsored a kid through Compassion for more than 10 years, but I really don’t know what Compassion is doing to make disciples of the people they touch.

So here I am now in Kenya. In full disclosure Compassion has paid all of my expenses so I can report on the work they are doing. Please check this blog daily for the next several days as I report on, “How to Disciple 1.3 Million People.” That is how many people they are currently ministering to on a daily/weekly basis. In Kenya alone Compassion is actively ministering to around 71,000 people.

Kenya is a fascinating country. Did you know they’ve only been a free country for about 35 years? That’s like the United States in 1812. This is a very “new” country. Additionally, they are very progressive for Africa. Kenya could set a powerful model for the rest of Africa to hopefully modernize.

Kenya has also been bordering on hard times. The last election seemed pretty shady. Riots broke out here in Nairobi. Additionally, Kenya is surrounded by some of the most dangerous countries in the world (Somalia and Sudan). Wouldn’t it be amazing if at least 71,000 people in Kenya grew to become fully devoted followers of Christ! If they became the next mayors, governors, business people and possibly a president one day, the face of Africa could radically change.

I’m hoping to meet these people over the next few days. Compassion has given me free reign to write it as I see it. If they’re doing a fantastic job feeding kids but a poor job of discipleship, I’ll let you know and hopefully be able to offer some solutions. I’ll be interviewing people of all ages finding out how grounded they are in our Lord. How is the reality of Christ changing their life? How do you really set out to disciple 1.3 million people.

I hope you enjoy the journey with me.Similar Posts:

• How to Disciple 1.3 Million People: Update #3
• How to Disciple 1.3 Million People: Update #2
• The Easy Belief of Dogmatic Speculation
• Now Shipping: How to Study the Bible DVD Study
• Introducing The Discipleship Program

I have come to have a love-hate relationship with theology. I love it because it can deepen one’s faith, helping people to rejoice more because they understand and know God better (Jer. 9:24). There is nothing more exciting than the look on peoples’ faces when they are being theologically transformed. It is the “wow, this is really true” look. I live for that both in myself and in others.

However, there is a dark side to theology. I see it everyday. I pray that this does not infect my students, but inevitably, there are always one or two who take their theological knowledge and create a recipe of sin and shame. These are people I call “theologically dangerous.”

The theologically dangerous have no grace. They get some right answers and then become the judge, jury and executioner of people. What should have been the path toward humility turns into the path of arrogance. Their self-justification for their graceless belligerence is this: “I am not arrogant, I am discerning.” Correct theology becomes a virtue that swallows up virtues of tenderness, grace, respect, and kindness, offering only a black hole of hopelessness unless people conform. Those who come in contact with them are judged only by their statement of faith. Their fellowship circle is small and friends few. The distinction between essentials and non-essentials does not find a place in their diary. They hunt and hunt for bad theology until they find it. They correct others with pride. When they are not invited to the parties, they interpret this as a mark of persecution for a theology well-played.

These are the type of people who are on the dark side of theology. Unfortunately, those who are theologically dangerous are the most vocal (and possibly, the most numerous). Since they have yet to be theologically humiliated, they can’t stop talking. The fear of God, they have yet to learn. They set themselves up as the watchdogs of Christian orthodoxy. They are the first to comment and correct on the blogs. They are the first to raise their hand in Sunday School when you say, “Does anyone have any questions?” Yet after ten minutes of talking, you ask yourself ”what part of the word ‘question’ do they not understand?” They question people’s salvation based on minor theological points of disagreement.

Fortunately, many eventually increase in their theological knowledge to a point where they become theologically transformed. This happens when one becomes theologically humiliated. It is like the transition from uninformed adolescence, to a know-it-all teenager, to a mature adult. The mature adult has wisdom and grace due to their coming of age theologically. All the things they thought they knew as a teenager goes through the trials of life. Doctrinal battle scars evidence a ripening of the fruit of belief. Their categories become more diverse. They realize that while there are some black and whites to our faith, there is also a lot of grey. In other words, they recognize that there is a lot we don’t know. They tighten their grip on the main things and losen it on others. They choose their battles very carefully. It is a transition from ignorance to arrogance back to some degree of informed ignorance.

At this point, fellowship can resume. The lynch mob is sent home. The invitations to parties trickle in. The lantern of the hope of the gospel is shinning bright. At this point, the dark side of theology is over.

 Similar Posts:

• Theology Avoidance Disorder
• Theology Unplugged: I’m Not Judgmental, I’m Discerning (with Sam Storms)
• Getting Theologically Humiliated
• How to Listen in Sunday School
• Theology is More Than Head Knowledge

A few mornings ago was one of the those mornings nobody likes.  Everything is going normal…until you turn the ignition key to get nothing in return but a ticking sound.  Ok, so I don’t know much about cars and had no idea what it could be.  I thought it wasn’t that long ago that I replaced my battery (I can hardly keep track of such things) so I figured it must be something else.  After a few tries, I figured it was time to call AAA.  As I waited, and walked around a bit, one of my neighbors who had been observing the whole thing, approached me and thought he should give me his assessment of the situation.  “It was my starter”, he said affirming that it had to be based on the sound the car was making.  He even had me turn the lights on so that he could see if it was my battery.  Nope, had to be the starter.

Well, that’s just great.  How much is that going to cost? I wondered.  So in response to my neighbors emphatic assessment, I got on the phone with my mechanic to let them know there was a high probability that I would have to have my car towed.  I had them give me an estimate based on this assessment of needing a starter.  Almost $400 bucks!?!?  I was two days away from payday and already had expenses earmarked.  I immediately started re-organizing things in my head to accommodate this unexpected expense.

Finally, the guy from AAA shows up.  Upon hearing the sound that replaced the engine noise, he immediately asserted “it’s your battery”.   I thought surely this AAA battery I got from the last time this happened should not have such a short shelf life.  But I figured that AAA had more credibility than the neighbor, who could only offer an emphatic statement based on his speculation.    I find out from the AAA guy that the battery only lasts a couple of years anyway.   And this is the business of AAA, right?    The guy actually knew what he was talking about.  Sure enough, after locating the receipt I discover that it had been 23 months since the last battery replacement.  Within 15 minutes, I was on the road again.  Whew!

But I think you know where I’m going with this.  It seems to me that this same kind of thing happens in our evangelical circles.  There are many preacher/pastor personalities that make emphatic statements based on speculation.   And the statements sound believable to those who don’t know any better.   Just like my neighbor who probably did have some kind of understanding of cars, these folks may have spent many years reading the bible but it is superficial.  There is not the type of engagement with the text that will accommodate an understanding of the historical or cultural context, authorial intent and correlation with the entire witness of scripture.  This is especially true when the theological method of ascertaining what a passage is communicating is based on a “spiritual” understanding  devoid of the realities of the text’s actual communication.  Turn on the TV and you will see plenty of this.  Unfortunately, that is a small percentage of what actually exists.  I would not be so concerned if I didn’t hear so much perpetuation of speculation.

But what is even more troubling – the number of people who believe such speculation upon hearing it.  After all, isn’t that what I did with the battery situation?  See if I had know more about cars, I probably would not have been so quick to accept what this neighbor said.  And that is the way it works with Christians who, for whatever reason, are not fed a proper diet of biblical literacy and rely on a theological method of experience and what sounds right.  Instead, there is gravitation towards crumbs that can be detached from a reasonable meaning and perpetuated because of this easy belief.   Personally, I am grieved that this happens.  The charismatic (no I don’t mean large “C”) deliverance of dogmatic speculation makes it sound reasonable and true.  Persuasion is a powerful tool especially when backed by large congregations, books and endorsements.

My wish is that pastors/church leaders take seriously the charge to disciple Christians.  That means giving them more than sound bytes and therapeutic remedies with selected proof-texted passages to support whatever claim is being made.   But more importantly, it means making sure their own their own theology is grounded in the historic witness of Christianity and is something more than speculation.  Yes, that means engaging in some type of objective learning experience where ideas and interpretations can be measured against that witness.  I can only hope that would cut down on the level of dogmatic speculation and circumvent erroneous understandings, giving Christians what they need and not just what sounds good.Similar Posts:

• A Need for Higher Learning – Part II
• Yes, We Should Follow ‘Man’…But ‘Man’ With Understanding
• A Matter of Perspective
• The Patsy Called Relativism
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?

I suppose my first exposure to the “dark side” of this world came when I read a book about the evil origin of all other Bible translations other than the King James Version. I was completely blown away. Everything I knew was wrong. There was a secret deception in the Christian camp! And the guys who wrote about this deception knew what they were talking about. At least, as far as I knew, they knew what they were talking about. After all, they were referring to history, Greek, and textual issues. This was all stuff I had never heard about. I supposed they had uncovered a secret plot. And I bought it. Why? Because I did not know any better. However, over the next few months, I investigated more thoroughly and found out there were going to be some issues were I to blindly accept their “scholarship.” First, I would have to reject just about everything I had read to date. Luckily, J. Vernon McGee used the King James, so he was safe. But most of the other books I had been reading used a variety of “off-limits” translations. Second, I came find out there were others out there who knew history, Greek, and textual issues, who did not agree with the findings of the King James Version crowd.

Over the years, I committed myself to becoming an expert in whatever area related to my Christian studies. I first started with textual criticism. I read everything I could find on the issue. I eventually made the decision that the position claiming the King James Version was the only acceptable translation (which I soon found out was called “King James Only”) was off-base, to say the least. That was one of the easier decisions to make. I then moved to issues of creation/evolution. I exhausted myself trying to learn everything that was known, said, and argued about every position out there. I even carried around a notecard workbook with all the terms, positions, and arguments, and would quiz my family and friends (they eventually quit hanging around me!). Then I moved to studies of Revelation. Then to the “synoptic problem.” Then to the charismatic gifts debate. Then to the canon. Everywhere I went, I entered with a desire to understand as well as anyone out there (after all, I had a mind that worked just as well as anyone’s), but was left scratching my head, finding it hard to know who to trust.

Today, things are only more confusing. It was bad enough back then. But now with the internet, there is no end to alternative positions, soapboxes, and know-it-alls. I have finally realized I could never be an expert in every area. In fact, I was losing hope at becoming an expert in any one area. I had a choice to make. The way I figured, I could do one of four things: 1) keep plugging away at everything, hoping I could someday speak with authority on all things; 2) close my eyes, hold my ears, and just make the choices I hoped were best;3) become a hopeless relativist, believing that the never-ending options translated into never finding “the” truth; or 4) find a way to lean on trusted sources of integrity.

I have chosen number four. I will never be an expert on everything, but I can find honorable and studied men and women who are truly searching for the truth and have devoted more time than I will ever be able to log in their area of expertise. Like it or not, I have to “outsource” much of my studies to other people. I call this “referred conviction.”

Referred Conviction: knowledge or belief that comes through the valid trust we place in the expertise of another.

Although every one of these could be a blog post in itself, here are the things I generally look for in a scholar:

• Do they have a reputable education?
• Are they balanced?
• Are they overly dogmatic?
• Are they overly non-committal (i.e. “academic agnosticism”)?
• Do they recognize and bring to light the difficulties with their own positions when debatable?
• Are they prone to demonize those who don’t agree, or do they speak to them with a humble, respectful tone?
• Are they recognized and/or endorsed by others whom I deem to be reliable?
• Does their position ostracize other positions solely due to their associations (i.e., “this can’t be right, it is held by Catholics”)?
• Have they recanted or admitted when they have been wrong before (this is a big one, as it shows the scholar is not “in it” to hold a fort, but to discover truth)?
• Do they know when to quit?
• Is their scholarship and ambition based on a fringe or nonessential issue?
• Is their identity found in and tied to a particular institution, denomination, or ministry which demands certain conclusions?
• Do they know and promote the difference between essentials and nonessentials?

I could go on, but I think this gives you an idea of what I mean. And you know what? It is sad to say, but when these criteria are followed, the choices for good “scholars” shrink quite a bit. I am not saying every one of these must be present in perfection, but if five or six are represented, then I have good reason to refer my conviction to that individual.

Some of you may be asking why “Christ-honoring” is not one of the criteria.  You must understand that these criteria have come to define “Christ-honoring” to me.

By the way, if I see these phrases represented too much, I quickly move on:

“I am absolutely certain that . . .”
“There is not a doubt in my mind . . .“
“The church has always believed . . .”
“Everyone knows that . . .”
“It is perfectly clear . . .”
“No educated person believes . . .”
“Nothing could be further from the truth.“
“How can you be so stupid?”
“Have you completely lost your mind?”

Conversation stoppers do not a valid argument make.Similar Posts:

• King James Bible: Historical Map
• King James Bible: Historical Timeline
• “Someone Knows Something I Don’t”
• Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
• The Anatomy of Belief (5): Referred Conviction

Have you always wanted to learn more about your faith? For whatever reason you haven’t been led to a traditional Seminary but you still want “meat and potatoes” training. Our 10-week School of Theology is designed just for you! Really, YOU can take a seminary class this Fall! It won’t kill your budget. You won’t have to quit your job and sell your house. Our next class: Introduction to Theology begins Monday nights from 8:15-9:00pm CST starting September 12th, 2011. Register Today

Quick Facts: 10-week Study
When: Starting September 12th
Course Cost (option 1): $219 for Tuition; 10 DVD’s, class bound Workbook, program text books (Grudem, Systematic Theology and Olson Mosaic of Christian Belief)
Course Cost (option 2): $189 for Tuition; 10 DVD’s, class bound Workbook
Course Cost (option 3): $100 for Tuition, watch videos online (or on iPhone/Touch/Pad), PDF Workbook.

School of Theology Entails:

1. All students meet together Monday nights for a LIVE online classroom experience taught by C. Michael Patton, Th.M. (8:15-9pm CST Online).
2. Students are required to do textbook reading, assignments and quizzes for the week.
3. Students are tested twice during the ten week semester to help ensure learning.
4. Students who successfully complete The Theology Program earn a Certificate which is accepted toward advance standing at many Bible Colleges and Seminaries.
5. Live online classroom located here: www.reclaimingthemind.org/classroom

We would love to have you be part of the Fall 2011 School of Theology Classes.

Similar Posts:

• Now Enrolling: School of Theology
• Will Your Faith Grow this Fall?
• The Theology Program Starts Tomorrow: Enroll Now!
• HOLIDAY SALE! Entire Theology Program Just $349! (50% off)
• An Insider’s Critique of Seminary Online

Of course this is not the reason I had to put on my bulletproof vest. The post turned from a ”ho-hum” reminder to a slanderous “how could you?” when I used Roman Catholicism as an illustration of an institution that limits freedom. Further, from this, I suggested that true Roman Catholics cannot be good scholars. In order to qualify as “good” scholars, they have to be a bit rebellious.

I have been quite taken aback by the responses. Part of me is glad to see so many Protestants coming to the defense of Roman Catholics. It tells me that our readership is made up of those who are kind and gracious, not wanting to make unnecessary divides and not liking harsh rhetoric (which does nothing to advance our cause and does not honor Christ). Though I don’t think I made any overstatements or used sensationalistic rhetoric to make my point, I am glad to see pushback, so long as it is thoughtful. As well, I believe I have earned the right to write a “wounds of a friend” post every once in a while. Those of you who are regulars of this blog know that I don’t engage in polemics very often. I feel I have written in a balanced way over the years, even if it has not been perfect. But every so often I will write something that cuts to the quick. Looking back at this post, it would have done me well to preface it with a study on the Roman Catholic view of authority. This might have served as a reminder (to those of us who are Protestants) why we don’t believe in an infallible Magisterium, and why we do believe this body ultimately does much more harm than good.

My History with Roman Catholicism

When I was exploring the Roman Catholic faith many years ago, I did not do so as a mere outsider who was trying to gather apologetic ammo. I did so prayerfully and respectfully, wrestling with the Lord concerning every detail and doctrine. After nearly a year of daily engagement with Catholicism (sometimes for 4-5 hours a day – my whole family remembers that time!), reading and talking with the “best of” Roman Catholics, I came to understand Catholicism at a whole different level. My fellowship with many Catholics became so close and sweet that many of them approached me and said that they all knew that it was simply a matter of time before I converted. However, this was not to be.

During this time I reshaped my understanding of Catholicism in many ways. For example:

Prayers to Mary and the saints: I used to think that these amounted to worship of Many the saints. While this might be true of some Roman Catholics, it did not represent the true teaching of the Church on this matter. When Catholics pray to Mary and the saints, it is not unlike when you or I ask someone to pray for us. We are not worshiping the one we ask to pray for us, are we? When a Roman Catholic prays to a saint, they are simply asking them to intercede on their behalf the same way as when you or I ask a friend to pray for us. And from their perspective, who better to ask to pray for you then Mary, Jesus’ mother!

Yes, I still disagree with this practice, but I don’t view it as saint worship anymore.

Purgatory: I used to think this was a doctrine which expressed a wholly deficient view of the atonement. What Christ did was not enough. His payment was insufficient, so we must spend some atoning time in Purgatory. While this is the view of some Roman Catholics, others merely see it as “washing up before dinner.” In other words, all of us believe in some type of process that completely sanctifies us after death. We all believe that Christians die imperfect and fallen, but something happens between death and the presence of God, which makes us actually and totally free from all sin. What happens? What cleanses us? Catholics call this Purgatory. Many see it as a timeless (almost instantaneous) event. It is like our last surgery.

While I strongly disagree with any type of atoning event which uses suffering as its means of cleansing, I can live with this “modified” understanding of Purgatory without getting too bent out of shape these days.

Doctrinal Development: But hasn’t Catholicism changed so much over the years? How can they claim to be a stable entity when they have contradicted themselves so often? Those who are serious about understanding Roman Catholic theology as it stands today must engage An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman. In my opinion, it is the most important Roman Catholic apologetic work of the last two centuries, and possibly since the Reformation. In essence, Newman gives Rome an articulated defense of how and why Roman Catholic doctrine develops (i.e., it develops, but does not change).

Again, I disagree with the work’s final implications (that Rome has not really changed), but I can now understand how one can still have their historic integrity and their Catholicism, too.

My journey in and out of Roman Catholicism was an incredible struggle, filled with the fostering of new friendships, appreciation, and some degree of anxiety as I returned my visitor’s pass and sailed back across the Tiber. There are so many things to say, but I must move quickly to a justification of my last post concerning their scholarship.

Can Catholics Disagree with Rome and Remain Catholics?

As many of you know, my primary training is in New Testament studies. I love and respect theology, philosophy, and church history, but when push comes to shove, I want to know what the text says. I love to study commentaries. I love to read them cover to cover. Although I could do a much better job of it, I love to keep up on my Greek. Nothing persuades me of truth more than discovering it in the Bible. In short, I love exegesis.

Issues related to interpretation became a major focus of my conversations with Catholics. My primary question was this: What if I have an interpretation of a text that does not agree with Rome? Is that okay? What you have to know is that there is quit a bit of freedom to interpret in the Roman Catholic system. Wait. I know what you are thinking. Doesn’t that militate against what your previous post argued – that there is not academic freedom in Rome? Well, it depends on what you mean. You see, contrary to popular opinion, Rome has not spoken directly and dogmatically to many passages of Scripture. Even the Pope rarely, if ever, speaks infallibly. He is just as fallible as you or I 99.999% of the time. It is only when he speaks “from the chair” that his words are infallibly binding. And there is quite a bit of debate among Catholics as to when Popes have actually exercised this privilege. In other words, there is not a “Dogmatic-Required-by-Rome-Commentary” out there. The Pope and councils have not laid out how understand every text of the Bible. Therefore, there is some degree of freedom.

However, there are some passages, such as Matthew 16, that have been dogmatized (you know, the whole “Peter and the keys to heaven establishing the Papacy” thing). More importantly, theology has been dogmatized. In other words, however one reads the Scripture, in the end, the reading must fall in line with Roman Catholic theology.

So…can one interpret the Bible in a way that conflicts with Roman Catholic theology? The answer is no.

In my attempts to understand Roman Catholicism, I looked and looked for loopholes.

What if I come to the conviction that Mary was not ever-virgin? Can I teach accordingly? No.

What if I come to the conviction that missing mass on Sundays is not a mortal sin? Can I teach and act accordingly? No.

What if I came to the conclusion that the Bible teaches against the doctrine of Purgatory? Can I teach my kids this? No.

What if I disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation, believing that John 6 was not to be taken literally? Could I teach and believe accordingly? No. Well, not if I expect to be a true Roman Catholic.

What About Hans Kung?

In response to my last post, many people brought up the fact that there are many within the Catholic Church who have disagreed with the Church and are still in good standing. Therefore, they believe this invalidates my last post. Hans Kung is always the example in these cases! While it is true that Rome has not formally excommunicated Kung, this does not serve as a good illustration, as any good Catholic will inform you. One does not have to be formally excommunicated to have lost their standing in the Church. Think about it. I am sure that there are many everyday dads and moms and brothers and sisters who have never been formally “kicked out” of the Church, yet hold incredibly aberrant views. They are not “safe” simply because the institution has not formally recognized their apostasy. Apostasy is defined very clearly and happens upon the subject’s departure, not the Church’s recognition of this departure. So one should expect to find thousands, indeed millions, of examples of those who hold views different from Rome’s, but are still “members in good standing.”

Again, this was such an important question for me: Can one study the Bible and come to conclusions that are different than what has been dogmatized by Rome, and still be a true Catholic?

Let me quote Rome:

“23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)” (emphasis mine; Source)

Accepted and held. This is more than a mere “I will not teach against this” like we have in the documents of membership at Stonebriar Community Church. This doctrines much be accepted and held. And this is not a passive acceptance, but one that must be firm.

Doesn’t Evangelicalism Have the Same Limits?

Finally, a word about Roman Catholicism compared to Evangelicalism. Many have objected to me using Rome as a punching bag, believing that if Catholicism lacks freedom, then the same must be said of Evangelicalism. In a way, I see where people are coming from. However, this does not really work. Evangelicalism is not an institution. It has no creeds, documents of incorporation, headquarters, president, or pope. In theory, Evangelicalism is descriptive of a movement with which like-minded believers network or identify. One cannot be “kicked out” of Evangelicalism. One does not become an Evangelical by vowing to submit to the authority or even the idea of Evangelicalism. Therefore, the comparison does not work.

I even had someone complain by saying that since I was a 5-point Calvinist, the same restraints were upon me. They said that I did not have the freedom to interpret the Scriptures outside of my 5-point Calvinistic paradigm. Again, this is in no way parallel. Not only is 5-point Calvinism not an institution to which I submit, it is merely a description of my beliefs. I am free to become a 4-point Calvinist tomorrow if I so desire. (And this  often happens!. Every time I study the book of John, or talk with Dr. Hall Harris III, I become more 4-point.)

Again, the end is the same. Becoming a Roman Catholic amounts to a submission of your beliefs to the authority of Rome. I think one can be a fine philosopher, sociologist, epistemologist, and ethicist and still be a Roman Catholic. However, when it comes to theology and, most specifically, exegetical studies of the Bible, I don’t think he or she can be a scholar, since they lack the academic freedom to disagree with Rome.

Contray to what many people have said, I don’t hate Rome. Maybe I should have used Mormonism as the example. You think there would have been less push-back if I did? I probably shouldn’t have used any illustration at all! Just left it as “Embracing Doubt.” Oh well, damage done.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Walking Away from Protestantism: Francis Beckwith Converts to Catholicism
• Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?
• Essential Differences Between Catholics and Protestants
• Embracing Doubt or Why ‘Roman Catholic Scholarship’ is an Oxymoron

Learn More about The Discipleship Program

Similar Posts:

• Introducing Bible Boot Camp DVD Curriculum: Essentials of the Faith
• Will Your Faith Grow this Fall?
• Now Shipping: How to Study the Bible DVD Study
• An Outline of What I Taught on Suffering and Evil
• The Theology Program PowerPoints 50% Off (2,708 Slides!!)

I love Tim’s clip here asking the question can theology destroy our faith.  He honestly assesses, yes if it the information is not applied towards a genuine relationship with God.  Information should not be feared because any genuine relationship is built on having the information.  So theology is understanding about God and how we think about God, that as we grow in understanding through Bible reading and instruction, prayer and genuine fellowship, should provide a tool for facilitating growth. Theology proper will involve the study of how others have come to conclusions of the main tenets of the Christian faith.  I think this is a valuable and fruitful exercise, combined with Bible study, as we grow and mature in the true knowledge of Jesus Christ.

It occurs to me however,  that the topics of theology have to be introduced progressively according to the maturity of the believer.  I think the programs at Reclaiming the Mind/Credo House do a great job of that in helping people think about their faith without supplanting the core necessities for spiritual growth.  But, theology can become a stumbling block when theological debate takes precedent over spiritual growth.  This is especially critical for young, immature believers in Christ.  What do I mean by stumbling block? It is something that causes a believer to sin, which will deter spiritual growth.  Here is how I believe theology can do this.

In Matthew 18, Jesus is responding to his disciples question of who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Truly I say unto you unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in my name receives me  (Matthew 18:3-5 NASB)

Simply put, Jesus is addressing the fact that those who place faith in Him, will be received.  It is not exclusively a reference to children, as some of argued, but reflects those who would humble themselves in recognition in the work and person of Christ.

When believers come to Christ, they need to be instructed in Christians basics.  Period.  That might involve laying out what competing positions hold to, but the goal of Christian instruction is to ground the believer in their identity in Christ and their knowledge concerning the revelation of God.  As believers mature and learning increases, then it is feasible to start introducing competing viewpoints and especially those that might be directly opposed to what that particular denomination or affiliation espouses.

We read in the gospels Jesus’ opposition to the Pharisees.  The problem with the Pharisees is that in their quest to preserve obedience to the law, they imposed a righteousness upon the Mosaic legislation that was not intended.  It makes sense, since Israel as a nation was scattered and anticipated restoration of covenantal promises that had been transgressed through Israel’s apostasy and subsequent exile.  

It occurs to me that we can adopt the mentality of the Pharisees with respect to our theological systems with respect to new and young believers in the faith.  Let me explain.  When someone accepts the gospel message and places faith in Christ, in many regards they are like clean slates though not really since we bring pre-suppositions into perspectives based on prior experiences.

What Jesus is addressing with the Pharisees are attitudes of the heart that have prevented them from seeing who He is.   Such attitudes that we can adopt also with respect to the ability to understand Him and His purpose, including

• Self-righteousness
• Pride
• Divisiveness

This becomes evident in the insistence that certain doctrinal persuasions or theological systems must be the only solution.  I believe theology becomes a stumbling block when we impose our theological systems upon believers, and especially in an effort to steer them clear of positions we are opposed to.  It is when we adopt the attitude like the Pharisees that insist in the righteousness of our system and that belief in THAT particular theology is vital for Christian maturity.

We can utilize language against certain positions or systems that can establish a hostility, particular when inflammatory language is used in reference competing positions

• Calvinism is evil
• Dispensationalism is heresy
• Arminians contribute to their own salvation
• Egalitarians reject God’s authority
• Complementarians are dictators

I fear that when we impose a particular system with an emphasis on hostility towards other positions, what should be a pure catechesis in the faith is now tainted with rejection of other viewpoints.   This will probably sow seeds of the attitudes that Jesus was opposed to in the Pharisees – self-righteousness, pride and divisiveness.  Christian belief now becomes belief a particular flavor and development in the faith is juxtaposed to rejection of certain positions that without Christian maturity, will most likely involve the inability to embrace others as true brothers and sisters in Christ.

When this happens, it is very much a stumbling block because the one who has come to Christ in childlike faith is burdened with the necessity of upholding certain views on one hand, and rejecting others on the other.  Because the believer is not grounded in the faith, the likely tendency will be to go with whatever influence is persuading their beliefs to avoid the potential of isolation from the group.   The group dynamic takes over, and the young believer feels compelled to accommodate their views, to ‘go along to get along’.

Is it any wonder that in the discourse of theological dialogue, attitudes of superiority and dogmatism emerge, replete with hostility against proponents of competing viewpoints?  Now, I believe there are myriad reasons why this happens.  But my guess would be that the infancy stage of such perpetrators was influenced by hostilities as exhibited above.   Somewhere in the early stages of development, there was possibly an encouragement to disdain those that did not hold to particular view.  Somewhere in the early stages of development, it is possible that the essentials of Christianity became encumbered with additional belief requirements to gain acceptance.   No, not in every instance.  But certainly, such influence will have ramifications.

Now, I’m not saying that we play with heretical ideas regarding Christianity or demonstrate how such ideas are anathema to Christianity.  Believers, and especially young and vulnerable believers need to be cautioned against detrimental positions, which is the job of pastoral leadership.  But even those have to be treated with a methodology that evidences fruitful investigation and not just knee-jerk responses based on one’s doctrinal leanings.  I think far more ideas get ascribed the title of heresy than is warranted by the actual position.  How we treat even these topics can shape the approaches of the young.

So the warning to the Pharisee’s ought also to serve as an admonishment to those who would seek to influence the young of biased and uncharitable propaganda that shapes how the view and receive others.

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6).

Let us use discernment when engaging in theological topics and how we handle competing positions, particularly with the young lest we cause them to stumble and deter the ability to demonstrate Christianly respect and charitable interaction with their fellow believers.Similar Posts:

• Overcoming Theological Preservation
• Why I Do Not Teach Christian Living Principles
• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners
• Yes, Christianity is a Religion
• Have We Made the Holy Spirit the Odd Man Out?

First, let me lay some groundwork.

Exegesis is a term used to describe the process of taking meaning “out of” the text. When we exegete Scripture, the implication is that we are using a method of hermeneutic that values understanding the authorial intent of the passage in order to derive its true meaning (often called “authorial intent hermeneutic” or “historical-grammatical interpretation”). In other words, exegesis attempts to understand the meaning of the text on its own terms. To properly exegete Scripture we must understand many things about the individual book. Among other things, we must seek to understand the purpose for the writing (the occasion), the audience, the cultural and historic backgrounds, linguistic issues such as syntax, word usage, and contextual boundaries, type of literature (genre), and attitude and personality of the author. All of these factors come into play with a good exegete. There is nothing more important, as we will see, than having good exegesis. God does not speak to man outside of the vital role represented by the human author. As Kevin Vanhoozer states in The Dictionary of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, “We may legitimately presume that the divine intention corresponds to the human intention unless there is good reason—given the nature of God or the broader canonical context—to think otherwise” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005, 329).

Having said that, it is important to realize that good exegesis does not automatically produce good theology.

But before I go there, let me further elaborate on some of the differences between exegesis and theology. I also need to introduce a third: pastoral or practical studies. You may have seen me write on this before.

Three types of Christian scholarship:

1. Exegetes (study) - Level one studies 

original research; learning; data; facts

 These are the type of people who are continually doing research. They primarily involve themselves in first hand resources. In biblical studies, they are concerned with original language, backgrounds, historical criticism, and textual issues. They are often (though not always) very timid to take theological stands due to their realization of the complexities of the issues involved. Because of this, they are sometimes accused of “academic agnosticism.” They are very precise thinkers and normally find it difficult to teach because they are always qualifying everything.  More often than not they limit their studies to very particular areas.

They find all the pieces of the puzzle.

Viewpoint: TREES

• Why they might dislike theologians: “They often lack the precise information and are sloppy with the facts.”
• Why they need theologians: To process the data and come to conclusions from a broader understanding.
• Possible problems with exegetes: Truth often dies the death of a thousand qualifications. They can lack common sense. Their precise studies can blind them to the obvious.

2. Theologian/Philosopher (think) – Level two studies

systematize; reflect; theories

 Theologians are the thinkers. They are not so much concerned about researching and discovering original data, but with the bigger picture of what the data means and exploring original ideas. They spend their time reflecting on issues and coming to conclusions about truth. They systematize the data in order that creeds can be reasoned, established, and defended. They are much broader in their thinking and studies, having to be familiar with many areas of scholarship in order to provide a systematic understanding of the complete truth. They are concerned with biblical studies, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, logic, and the like.

They put the puzzle together.

Viewpoint: FOREST

• Why they might dislike exegetes: “They lack wisdom.”
• Why they might dislike pastoral-types: “They compromise the truth for acceptance.”
• Why they need exegetes: To provide accurate data from which to derive their conclusions.
• Why they need pastoral-types: To test the truth in the real world.
• Possible problems with theologians: They can be traditionalistic, being concerned with their preconceptions more than the truth. Can be rash about coming to conclusions without having done sufficient homework.

3. Pastoral/Missional (apply) – Level three studies

integrate; contextualize; communication

 These are concerned with how to distribute the information to others. They are focused on how the information can be applied to real life. They spend their time thinking about church, mission, and strategies. They are didactically (teaching) purposed. They are discerning as to what applies, when and where. They are more hands-on with the real world which gives them a great understanding of whether or not the truth , when tested, actually works. This is often the determining factor of the reality of our faith.

Pastoral types display the puzzle.

Viewpoint: TREES

• Why they might dislike exegetes and theologians: “They are ivory tower scholars who cannot relate to the real world.”
• Possible problems with pastors-type: Methodology can take priority over the truth. They spend so much time thinking about programs and contextualization, they can compromise the information in favor of acceptance.

While most of us will see ourselves more in one than the others (I find myself in 2), we need to be careful. Of course we need to recognize the dangers and listen to the critique of the others, but more than that, we need to be continually committed to finding balance. Our gifts and calling are going to clearly drive us to one more than the others so I am not saying neglect one to brush up on the others. But I am saying that if you neglect the others, it will make you less proficient in the one. I have seen sloppy theologians. I have been a sloppy theologian. I have seen exegetes who seem to continually miss the obvious. I have seen pastoral-types compromise. All I am saying is that you need to be aware of where you stand and committed to excellence by being appreciative of all three.

Exegesis without Theology

Exegesis deals primarily with temporal meaning, theology, on the other hand, deals with eternal implications. Exegesis provides what it meant then, theology provides what it means for all time. Exegesis shows what an individual author had to say in the context in which he was writing, theology synthesizes this with the rest of Scripture attempting to understand what God was saying in relation to the completed revelation. In other words, exegesis looks at the trees, theology looks at the forest.

Evangelicals believe in what is called the dual authorship of Scripture, believing that the Bible is the product of God (being theopneustos “God-breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16) who fully utilized man in all ways to produce an inspired text. While this utilization of man makes solid exegesis indispensable for theology, we cannot get so caught up in temporal exegesis that we do not see this in relation to the coherent whole. If God is the ultimate author of Scripture, there must be an underlying coherent purpose in which the text lies. This assumption of coherence leads one to the next steps in interpretation.

The first is the discovery of the broader theological teaching in which the present passage fits in the progress of revelation. This is often described as the “canonical context.” It asks the question “How much did the individual author know at the time of his writing and how does this help to understand the teaching at hand?” This assumes that not all authors have complete revelation. In other words, some authors knew more about God’s ultimate purpose than others. No one would disagree that Paul had a greater understanding of, for example, the Gospel, the grace of God, nature of the Trinity, and the universal sinfulness of man than did Moses who wrote 2500 years earlier or Abraham who lived 4500 years earlier. This does no injustice to the teachings of Moses or Abraham, it simply recognizes that prophets, while inspired, were not omniscient. They simply had the information that was necessary for their part in the revelatory whole. As the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy states: “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” The Bible is true without conveying “omniscience” upon the individual authors. Therefore, when we exegete a particular author, we must understand that he can provide us with a teaching that is true and limited at the same time. Its truth adds to the fuller truth of that which is revealed elsewhere in the canon. This canonical approach to interpretation can be neglected by well intentioned exegetes who may have the tendency to focus only on the value of the immediate argument or teaching at hand, and thereby commit the coherence fallacy.

Another important hermeneutical concept that can be neglected by exegetes is called the analogy of Scripture. Simply put the analogy of Scripture means “the Scripture interprets Scripture.” It is often used synonymously with the canonical approach concept, but is distinct in that it is a way in which the canonical approach is accomplished. The canonical approach deals with a hermeneutical philosophy that the different books of Scripture fall somewhere within a coherent whole that creates a theological system, while the analogy of Scripture seeks to interpret the part based upon the whole. For example, we read of the curse upon the snake in Eden:

“And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel.” (Gen 3:15)

Concerning this passage a good exegete would tell you that the text does not tell us, based upon authorial intent hermeneutics, who the snake was or what the curse meant. Moses himself probably had no idea of the full implications of this passage. To the Israelites residing in the land of Canaan who initially received this account, having no other revelation to compare this event to, it probably amounted to an obscure hope. Understanding this would be necessary for our understanding of the situation of the time and is vital to proper exegesis of the passage. But we cannot stop there. With the assumption that this passage is a part of a canonical whole superintended by God, we would take the next step in our interpretive process and seek to find if there is further revelation about this curse throughout the rest of Scripture that helps clarify and advance what, if left alone, is obscurity. Later in Scripture we are told that the snake was Satan (Rev. 12:7-9 and the overriding theme of the consistent enmity that Satan enacts with humanity) and his defeat, being “attacked on the head,” was enacted at the cross and will be fully realized in the eschaton (Lk. 10:18; Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8).

It is an unfortunate thing when we get so bogged down in the meaning of the text, trying to understand what the text meant, and lose sight of the big picture question “What does it mean?” Often, we can become such good exegetes that we forget to put the pieces of the puzzle together to form a coherent whole. Vanhoozer continues concerning this, “Recognizing Scripture’s divine authorship ultimately requires us to the read the biblical text as one book. As with any action, we can adequately identify what has been done in Scripture only by considering its action as a whole. The divine intention must come to light when God’s communicative acts are described in canonical context” (ibid.).

This fallacy often incarnates itself in the form of a more specific fallacy called the “proof-text fallacy.” One form of the proof-text fallacy simply strings together many out-of-context passages in an attempt to confirm a theological mandate or teaching. This is often committed by those who are committed to the inspiration of Scripture, but fail to recognize the role that man plays in the immediate intent behind Scripture. The second type of proof-texting, and the one that concerns our present purpose, comes from those who neglect the implications of inspiration, focusing on the author at hand. In other words, it can be committed by exegetes focused only on the authorial intent of the immediate text. This proof-text fallacy essentially takes one portion of Scripture and uses it as an autonomous proof-text for a dogmatic assertion. This can be illustrated by the infamous statement of James in James 2:24:

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Someone might say that this passage teaches that justification is not by faith alone, but by works as well. If interpreted outside of the canonical whole, this passage could be used to support this teaching. But when its canonical context is considered, we find that such a conclusion is based upon hasty autonomous proof-texting that does not take into consideration the broader theological teaching of the whole of Scripture. Among others, Paul seems to state just the opposite in many of his letters. Most specifically and clearly this is seen in his letter to the Romans.

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28)

Understanding that the Jews did not separate between any so-called moral Law and the Mosaic Law (Matt. 22:37-40), one would be hard pressed to distinguish between the “works” that James was speaking of and the “works of the Law” that Paul was speaking of; they are one and the same. In other words, Paul could have just as well said that we are justified by faith apart from (choris, “without relation to”) works period! But he used the Law to illustrate the most virtuous embodiment of works that was known to the Jewish people. Using the analogy of Scripture, the canonical process, in conjunction with an authorial intent hermeneutic, these passages can be reconciled. First we must recognize the purpose of the writing. Paul’s purpose is clearly stated in the prologue to his letter. He sought to give a clear presentation of the Gospel to those who were in Rome, a city to which he had never been (Rom. 1:11-15). Knowing that Paul had never been to Rome and that his purpose was to lay out the working of Christ in a large influential metropolitan area, we understand that this was not a letter in response to any problem that he sought to correct. He was not reprimanding the Romans in any way. His passions are guided by his passion for the Gospel, not based upon any chaotic circumstance which had initiated the letter. Therefore, we would expect his writing to be more objective in argumentation. We would expect Paul to be able to systematically lay out his argument concerning the Gospel unimpeded by frustration or anger. It is because of these reasons that the book of Romans forms the greatest theological treatise in the whole of Scripture. James, on the other hand, was writing to circumstances all together different than Paul’s. James is writing in response to abuse in the church. His tone is more pastoral and his passions are based upon the desire to correct these abuses rather than give an objective presentation of the Gospel, like that of Paul. There were “brethren” to whom he was writing who were showing favoritism in the church setting (Jam. 2:1). This causes James to have a tone of frustration and often sarcasm as he writes. Angered by the fact that these people were evidently claiming that they could neglect people of the basic needs in life and still claim to have faith in Christ, he responds that faith without works is a dead faith that cannot save.

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (Jam. 2:15-17)

Imagine people who call themselves Christians not helping those who are in need when they have every means to meet their needs, claiming “I don’t need to help this person since I am saved by faith alone and not by feeding the hungry.” That they were claiming this is evident by James’ rhetoric. Maybe they had heard Paul’s teaching on salvation by faith alone. Maybe they had heard James himself give a similar lesson. But in the process, this doctrine was abused and misapplied to the point where James explicitly says that salvation is not by faith alone using Abraham as an illustration (note: the same Abraham that Paul used to illustrate the opposite in Romans 4!).

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

As was said before, if this passage in James were taken out of the canonical context, we could go either way with it. But, understanding the clear and more objective teachings of Paul, we understand this passage in a different light. We see that James, frustratingly writes to people who are abusing the true doctrine of justification by faith alone in order to justify their sin. The entire context presents James as one who believes that true faith will always produce works. He says in verse 18, “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works;’ show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” So, his purpose is not to objectively lay out the Gospel message of salvation, but the practical message of what true faith will accomplish, which is a changed life. Knowing this, it is understandable why James would seemingly counter Paul saying that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. I am a pastor, and I can see the need for such an exhortation. If the situation presented itself where my people where neglecting the needs of others claiming the doctrine of justification by faith alone as an excuse, I would have every right and obligation to question the validity of their faith. I might even go so far as to tell the people, like James, “You think your faith saves you? Well let me tell you, faith does not count if it does not produce works, because the kind of faith God gives will always produces works. You think you are justified by faith alone? You are not!” The context would determine the meaning. In the broader “canonical” context of my life, others would know very well that I believe in justification by faith alone. They would know this from other teachings that I had given them over the years. But this perspective that I add through my frustrated exhortation would be that true faith always works, and the type of faith that you claim to have alone will not save. Knowing the whole of my teaching and doing an “analogy of Michael” would explain perfectly well what I meant and there would be no contradiction, just different emphasis and perspective based upon the situation. In short, a canonical approach to Scripture helps us to understand that the Bible teaches, as the saying goes, that justification is by faith alone, but the faith that saves will not be alone. But we could never come to this theological big picture conclusion if we did not employ both the authorial intent hermeneutic along with the canonical approach to Scripture. That is why this type of autonomous proof-texting is so dangerous. We must understand that the divine authorship of Scripture demands a systematic coherency.

This coherency fallacy is understandable for those who reject the divine inspiration of Scripture since they do not believe that God was superintending the writing of Scripture, but it is inexcusable for those who believe that God is the ultimate author of the entirety of Scripture. That is why it is so important to keep the big picture in front of you at all times. To help avoid this fallacy, I would suggest keeping up with a “thru the Bible in a year” program (without losing interest after month three!) at the same time as studying individual books exegetically. This will force you to synthesize what is being said with what has been said and what will be said no matter what book you are studying. It will help you to see the beautiful tapestry of Scripture at that same time as struggling through the inherent tensions that exist. In short, never sacrifice good exegesis, but spend more time thinking about the implications of your interpretation in relation to the rest of God’s word and his world before formulating a dogmatic theology upon one exegeted text. We need to see studying less as reading the part and more as thinking about the whole in order to avoid this first fallacy.

In short, there is no exegesis vs. theology in Christian studies. At least, there should not be. We believe in authorial intent hermeneutics, but we also believe that there is an ultimate Author who pulls it all together. Be good exegetes and be good theologians.Similar Posts:

• Good Exegesis Does not Always Produce Good Theology
• Does good exegesis always produce good theology?
• Common Errors in Bible Interpretation
• Theology is the pursuit of truth, not prejudice
• Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice

We’re so proud to be offering the next installment (volume 2) in our brand new Bible Boot Camp series: How to Study the Bible

So many people believe the Bible is accurate, yet so few actually study it regularly.  Many times this is because the reader has never been given solid tools to study the Bible. In this 4-session small-group DVD study (each session is 45 minutes) we give time-tested principles to help you better understand God’s great Word.

Session #1 – The Interpretive Process : lays the ground work to approach any verse.
Session #2 – Bridging the Historical Gap : so many are sidetracked in their Bible reading because they’ve never learned how to bridge more than 2000 years of history between us and the text.
Session #3 – Bridging the Literary Gap : many give up on the Bible because they’re trying to interpret every book the same, we show how appreciating the different genres of Scripture is so important for personal Bible study
Session #4 – Bridging the Contextual Gap : context is so important when studying the Bible, this Boot Camp wraps up with strong training in keeping the context clear as we interpret the Bible

Each session is 45 minutes long with discussion questions at the end. Perfect for your small group, Sunday school, friends, and family.

Price:
$29.99 for the 4-Disc DVD (order DVD)
$7.99 for each workbook (order workbook)

Click Here to Order Today

Blessed to serve you,
Reclaiming the Mind/ Credo House Ministries Staff

Similar Posts:

• Introducing Bible Boot Camp DVD Curriculum: Essentials of the Faith
• Introducing The Discipleship Program
• Online School of Theology: Starts Sept. 12th!
• Why I Think Women Need to Study Theology
• Ten Questions I Always Ask Myself When Reading the Bible