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

Last week I met with an old friend of mine who I had heard was a “swinger.” For those of you who don’t know, swinging is when both partners in a committed relationship agree to have a sexually open relationship. This guy was married and came in to talk to me about – you guessed it – marital problems. The idea in “swinging” is that things never become mundane. Sexual monogamy, according to swingers, is nothing more than confining yourself to sexual boredom. Being with the same partner becomes cliché and uneventful. Swinging keeps things fresh and novel at all times so the high produced by provocation is always maintained.

As problematic and destructive as marital swinging is, that is not what I am writing about. I want to talk about what I call theological swinging. This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems in theology today (and probably of any day). Let me explain.

Before going to seminary, I was given a set of books by my pastor. At the time he was, to me, the smartest person living on planet Earth. I salivated to get a peek of his notes each week. I wanted to record everything he said. And just to get to see his library – the source of the very sun! – was just about too much excitement for me to handle. That is why I was speechless the day he gave me two books, one blue and one red. I knew these were precious books to him due to the amount of notes and stickies that covered the dog-eared pages. What were they? Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volumes 1 and 2 by Josh McDowell. Upon reception of these books I read them cover to cover. The wisdom and knowledge that filled these pages was almost too much excitement for this 20-year-old apologist wannabe to take. It was so provocative to me. The provocation came, not from learning the Gospel for the first time, but from seeing for the first time, with my own eyes, an attempt to defend Christianity. “Are you kidding me?” were the words I said each time I hit a new topic. This guy, Josh McDowell, must be a giant of the faith, demanding respect from everyone. He was my new hero.

It was not until I hit seminary that I found out the “truth:” You see, at seminary, among all the students “in the know,” I came to find out very quickly that these kinds of works are frowned upon. I came to find out that McDowell’s apologetics were called “pop” apologetics. In essence, pop apologetics is a cliché defense of the faith performed by cliché apologists. Translation: it was naive. It was not kosher. If and when I quoted someone like McDowell in a conversation with fellow students, there would be some snickering. The idea conveyed was that there were certain works, written by certain authors, that were “little league” and not respectable. Whether is was Lewis Sperry Chafer, Josh McDowell, Wayne Grudem, or R.C. Sproul (all of whom were my self-proclaimed mentors until that point), they were, at best, milk from the breast of my mother; at worst, naive teachers who simply parroted the simple and sheltered faith of evangelicalism. If you wanted to run with the “big boys” you had to read yourself some Barth, Multmonn, Hauerwas, or one of the liberation theologians such as Boff or Gutierrez. Why? Because, quite frankly, they did not fit the “stupid” evangelical mold. These were the “cool” people to read. They were the trump cards that, when played, left other students feeling inadequate and inferior. I thought I could read Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come and be prepared for any discussion on eschatology. Who knew that quoting Theology of Hope by Jürgen Moltmann at Dallas Theological Seminary would be more prestigious than Pentecost? Who knew that saying that you had been reading A Theology of Liberation would score you more points than reading Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie? Who knew that the greatest danger for any Christian leader was to be labeled cliché?

Let me try to illustrate this another way before I get back to the swinger thing: I remember in fourth grade, there was a girl who held the near-unanimous vote for being the prettiest gal in school. Everyone was in love with her. Everyone wanted to sit by her at lunch or go across the monkey bars with her at recess. If you gained either of these honors you were, by extension, the most popular guy in school. She held that much power. However, things changed. By the time our same group of friends entered high school, she was no longer held in such high esteem. In fact, thinking she was pretty was somewhat passé. Suddenly, it was the random loner gal (who everyone previously thought was weird). Suddenly it was the one who hung around with the skinheads and listened to Violent Femmes who everyone liked. On paper, she was not as pretty as our former love, but she was exotic. She was outside the box. If she were to lose her exotic “off-limits” appeal by joining our crowd (which some did), she was no longer the one. The primary qualification for appeal became novelty. Fresh appeal that comes from being obscure and mysterious went further than the meat and potatoes of good looks and charm.

Theology is a lot like this. If it is exotic, out of the norm, and less known, it does not matter how “pretty” it really is, it is what is “cool.” You see, in theology, for many people “in the know,” once something becomes mainstream, it is disqualified. Once it becomes too popular or normal, it is naive. Once everyone thinks it is correct, it is no longer qualified to be  anything but a foil for the correct. We become theological swingers whose end is not to find the truth, but simply to swing.

For theological swingers, referencing the unknown, obscure, rejected, Violent Femmes-loving theologian becomes a heavy-handed power play. It has its power because most people don’t know how to respond. A statement like, “I used to be premillenial like you until I read Moltmann” leaves people speechless. They don’t know who Moltmann is, much less read him, so they are left feeling inadequate to stay in the conversation. Mystery, intrigue, and novelty become placeholders for truth. Pastoral ideals of theological stability are replaced with looking smarter than the next person. Truth is not the goal, but rather self-image. And theological swingers just don’t want to be bored, liking the same gal that everyone else likes.

I have been a theological swinger. In fact, I am only now beginning to graduate from this way of thinking. I am only now beginning to see that this method is itself naive. For a time, I would not read anyone who fit the mold of my conservative evangelical theological culture. I felt that was my duty. I loved to quote those who were less known and exotic. I still have the tendency to belittle (at least in the back of my mind) people who reference and quote theologians, biblical exegetes, and philosophers who are too popular within the evangelical sub-culture. I am ashamed to say that McDowell, who inspired me so much before, became to me an embarrassing distant relative who only discredits my “scholarship” and reputation with others whose respect has fueled my swinging habit.

However, I am recovering. The first thing I have realized lately is that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation. Dealing with people who come out of other traditions has taught me this. Those whose culture is accustomed to learning from liberal theologians find conservatives provocative. Those who are accustomed to Eastern Orthodoxy find evangelical writings out of the box. Those who are fundamentalists rebel and swing with those who take a more liberal stand.

Theologies and theologians come and go. Provocation is a great thing, but if we are committed to provocation and swinging more than truth, the journey will be unending and ungodly. We will never be satisfied, as our compass will be broken. Divorce, adultery, and eternal convictionless theological swinging is all we can expect. Remember, there was a time when all the “pop” theologies and apologetics that you might look down upon now were not mainstream. They were the mysterious, obscure ideas. They were the novelties. However, their value does not come in their newness, but in their substance.

I do want to say that all of those thinkers I referenced before have been very much worth my time and attention. With popular theologians or the less popular ones, we all need to broaden our horizons. And we should read and learn outside the norm of our culture. We don’t need to accept mainstream because it is mainstream and we don’t need to reject it because of this either.  The exotic, novel, and provocative are worth our attention so long as truth, not novelty, is our goal. However, sometimes there is a reason why the gal who hangs out with the skinhead is obscure and unknown . . . and it is not because she is prettier than the other!

I write this for myself. These are confessions of a theological swinger. However, I know so many theologians and young “emerging” thinkers out there today who are completely unstable, swinging away and trying to get everyone else to swing with them. Swinging is not theologically “cool,” much less does it evidence any intelligence. It has no profundity and is the furthest thing from a pastoral approach to stabilizing people’s faith. Once we realize that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation, we will disengage in this endless search for something new. “Novel” is not synonymous with “profound.” Realize this: that which is new today will be passé tomorrow. All one has to do is look into much of the Emerging movement and see this swinging mentality displayed, as authors who were thought to be the most profound ten years ago are now thought of as simple.

And just as a sidenote (to get me into a bit of trouble), I often wonder if this mentality is more to blame for the resurgence of all the young people who are Calvinist charismatics than is actual theological conviction. It just seems like it is the “cool” thing to be these days in evangelicalism: young, restless, reformed, and charismatic – and to read Jonathan Edwards! Certainly I have nothing against Calvinism or Edwards (though, as you know, I have some issues with the charismatic movement), but I don’t know if celebration is necessarily in order. I have a hunch that many will switch dance partners once this fad goes out of style.

And, to put this into perspective: Theological swinging is nothing new itself! There were a bunch of these boys in Athens.

Acts 17:21
“Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.”Similar Posts:

• Are We Theological Bots?
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
• “True for You, But Not for Me” 2.0: The Newly-Released Revised, Expanded Edition
• Hi, I am Paul Copan

The other day I was listening to a radio program. The speaker is someone who is very popular in Evangelical apologetics. He is someone that I have learned a lot from and whom I respect a great deal. However, he propagated something that I think is, more often than not, a very poor apologetic response to questions for which the individual does not have answers. It goes like this:

Apologist teacher: “We need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.”

Student: “But I am scared. What if someone asks a question that I don’t have an answer for.”

Apologist teacher: “Don’t be scared. It is okay if you don’t know. Don’t feel bad about your lack of knowledge. You just need to remedy it. Tell them that it is a good question and that you will go find the answer and get back with them about it.”

However, I often find this sort of carte blanc response disturbing and quite demeaning.

I am not saying that it could not be a good answer in certain circumstances for certain questions. But when it comes to our defense of the faith we had better be more prepared and more reflective. What do I mean by this?

Think about it. Let’s put this in a particular situation. You are an enthusiastic Christian who believes deeply in the Gospel. You are talking to a co-worker about Christ one day. They begin to tell you about why they don’t believe in God. The crux of their issue is the problem of evil. “How could a good God allow evil?” That is their question. You respond, “I don’t know. Good question. I will research this some and get back to you next week.”

What you have just done here is legitimized your faith to this person. As well, you have diminished the seriousness of the question and the person asking it. To this person, your faith is carried even though you have not dealt with one of the most serious theological questions that anyone can ask. You have just told the person, “Hmmm…Good question. Never thought of that.” Once this person (who obviously does think deeply) recognizes that you have not personally wrestled with this issue, they might see your faith as shallow and fake. And you know what? They might be right. I am not saying that our faith is not true in such circumstances, only that it may be unreflective. 

Not only this, but you may be belittling the person by demeaning the question. How did you demean the question? By not engaging it, but simply saying “I will get the answer and come back.” Quick fix, eh? How do you know you will get the answer? Is it really that easy? Is it as simple as “getting the answer and coming back.” Here is the key point of what I am saying: You are saying to this person, “I know that this is the main reason why you reject God. You may think you are a smart chap, but you are not that smart since I can simply go get the answer and come back in no time!”

I am not saying that we have to have an answer for everything. After all, there will be a time in our Christian walk when we are first starting to deal with some of these difficult questions ourselves. Most pop apologetics today are concerned with good Evangelical cliché answers. It is not about engaging the issue. It is not about wrestling with problems. It is about “getting the answer and coming back.” Often there will be good answers. Other times there will be many legitimate options. Still, other times there will be no answers, just an understanding of the difficulty.

This is why Christian discipleship of the mind is so important. We need to show others that we are not disqualified due to intellectual shallowness. We need to have wrestled with the issue ourselves. We need to have been encouraged to do so by our mentors. We need to show others that we understand the problems not simply because we have read a question/answer book on the subject, but because we have been in the same place and asked the same questions. We have engaged and wrestled with the question personally. Therefore our answer comes from the depth of who we are, even if the answer is “I don’t know.”

Another example: Think about this. You are witnessing to someone and telling them about Scripture as God’s word. They begin to inquire about the contents of Scripture saying, “So many people have different books in their Bibles. How do you know that the books you use are the right ones?” You say, “Good question, I will get back to you on that.” Say what? You have not even wrestled with a foundational question such as this? How real can your faith actually be? That is what is going through their mind.

Or, how about this: They ask you how you know historically that Jesus rose from the grave and it is not just a Christian myth. You respond, “Good question. I am going to find out and get back to you on this.” You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave?? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave???? You, a Christian, are going to go (future tense) to find out why you believe the central element to the Christian faith is true? And you expect this person to follow you?

This comes in all areas of theology. As a Calvinist (one who believes in unconditional predestination) I am often asked many questions about why God did not choose everyone. I don’t have an answer for this. It disturbs me too. But this is not from lack of studying or reflection. I know all the options. I have spend many a night dealing with this with the Lord. However, I don’t have a good answer. But I do have an informed answer: “I don’t know.” Sometimes an informed I don’t know is better than an unreflective text book answer. Why? Because it legitimizes the question (and the one asking) and legitimizes your faith. You have shown that you are a real person, not a theological bot. Theological bots are simply concerned with the “right” answer to everything, not the struggle and the depth that accompanies true belief.

We are not theological bots. God wants us to love him with all our understanding. But our discipleship process must engage issues truly. We need to avoid surface level shallow defenses of our faith. They can do more harm than good. And, remember, on some issues, informed agnosticism is the best and most effective position to have.

If you are one who has done this often, if you are one who has yet to wrestle with your faith, take heart. I am not saying you have to be perfect. I am not saying that you have ruined your witness and someone is going to be burning in hell due to your negligence. If so, count me guilty as well. These things are tough. But you know what? God works in and with us even though we stumble, fall, and look, from the outsiders perspective, illegitimate. That is what grace is all about. When he is ready to change a heart, it will happen. If we fumble the ball, he does not—ever! However, we do need to be as diligent as possible, having allowed ourselves to personally wrestle with hard questions.Similar Posts:

• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Welcome to the world of agnostics
• “What if I Missed Something?”
• All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons
• Orthodoxy: Should We Define Who is “In” and Who is “Out”

While people can intellectually understand truth without the Holy Spirit moving miraculously in their heart, no one can accept the truth without his influence (1Cor 2:14-15). The same goes for us as Christians. We may study and have all the information in the world—even the right information—but this does not mean that we are going to be capable of accepting the truth. In other words, the acquisition of knowledge and understanding is meaningless without the power of God to trade your will for his. Pray that God will open your eyes to see and accept the truth.

Eph 1:18
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints.

2. Be ready to change your life

If you are not ready to change your life and thought in your studies, stop right there. The Bible says that faith is a gift. If we don’t or are unwilling to steward the gifts that the Lord gives to us, then not only will God not give us any more, but even what we have will be taken away from us (Luke 8:18). It is a dangerous thing to sit at the feet of Jesus as a curious spectator with neutral wills concerning the wisdom given. If God told us not to cast our pearls before swine how much more will he retain what is his when he notices a casual handling of his word. Every time we enter in to the presence of God’s truth being discharged, we must be willing to carry it. If not, run with me away from such. How much more dangerous to become callous to obedience than to not hear God’s will at all?

Jam 1:23-24
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

3. Recognize your bias

I remember one of my first classes with Dr. John Hannah, historic theology professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. As he introduced the subject of the course he said something like this: “We are going to teach you so many wonderful things from the history of the church. You are going to enter in to the world of the greatest most godly men of all time. But in the end, you are just going to believe what mommy and daddy told you when you were a kid.” There is a lot of truth to this. From a human standpoint, you are already biased and you need to realize this. Your history, experience, culture, “mommy and daddy”, and personality are already present. These have bent you in one way or another. You are always going to fight to keep your bent as it is the place where you feel the most comfort. As well, you have “preunderstandings” that effect your views. Previous commitments will cause you to interpret the data through an already constructed lens. The goal is not to get rid of all bias (as this is impossible), but to evaluate information with an understanding that these things exist and are affecting your judgment. It will temper you and allow you to approach things with more openness to change. This is integrity.

Pro 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.

4. Get a broad overview of the topic

This is the telescope before the microscope axiom. Don’t begin with the particulars. You must first get a broad overview of the topic at hand. This is looking at the “forest before the trees” and is absolutely essential to thoroughly cover before you get into the particulars. Read books and articles that give summaries and overviews, not ones that argue for the particular position. These types of overviews should give you a more unbiased look at the spectrum of belief, without arguing for any particular position. Theoretically, theological dictionaries and encyclopedias should be able to do this. Cover this well. You cannot spend too much time getting a basic familiarity with the topic. I often find people who are incredibly well versed in the particulars, but fail to see how these particulars fit into the big picture. I love how Stephen in Acts 7 gave an overview of the history of the Jewish people in five minutes. Can you do that with church history? Can you do that with the message of the Bible? Can you do that with the message of an individual book of the Bible?

Resources:

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

New Dictionary of Theology

(Note: This is not “biblical” theologies such as A Theological Dictionary of the New Testament)

5. Study the history of the issue

This is a crucial step that focuses a bit, but not too far yet. Here you will look at the issue through the lens of history. The goal here is to broaden your perspective and draw upon the historic body of Christ. This will prevent you from “reinventing the wheel” in your studies. We stand on the shoulders of giants. This step encourages you to step down off their shoulders and look at the ladder they have built. This is an issue of submission, respect, and humility. To bypass this step is to fail to draw upon the Spirit’s work in the church for the last two-thousand years and is, frankly, the epitome of theological arrogance.

Resources:

The History of Christian Doctrines (best concise overview)

A Concise History of Doctrine

Our Legacy

The Christian Tradition Vol 1-5 (the most extensive history of doctrine available)

Mosaic of Christian Belief

Historical Theology

6. Study the issue “across the spectrum”

Now it is time to begin to get into the various arguments for representative positions.  It is best to see a concise overview of the arguments rather than reading full-length books devoted to one position or another. This type of study will list the pros and cons for each. It is good to keep a set of notes that highlights the main points of the arguments. Here you will begin to strategically articulate your own questions about the issue. Take note of the arguments you feel are strong and those that you feel are weak. Write them down.

Resources:

Across the Spectrum (very concise and a must have. BTW: I am writing one of these that will be very comprehensive. Hopefully it will be out in the next year or two)

The Theology Program (Our ministry’s theological development curriculum which argues for each position in just about every area of theology with delicate balance)

Any “across the spectrum” type series such as Zondervan’s “Counterpoints“ and B&H’s “Perspectives” series

7. Engage in an interactive theological community

This is one of the great advantages of studying in a world with the internet. You can instantly connect to millions of people who are not part of your immediate community. During your studies so far, you are engaging in the issue in a rather static way. This step causes you to engage real people on every side of every issue. Here, you will devote yourself to asking questions, listening to answers, and integrating your systematic theology in a dynamic way which helps you to shape your understanding as iron sharpens iron. Whether it be an online community forum or emailing a professor, pastor, or theologian about the issue, here you are intent on refinement of your understanding. It is best to engage many people who are different in their beliefs, as well as different from the ones that you are leaning toward. You need to hear answers “from the horses mouth.” For example, when preparing The Theology Program over a five year period, I needed to engage Catholic belief quite a bit. Besides reading books on Roman Catholicism, I was on the Catholic Answers forum for two years, asking questions and making sure I understood things accurately. This community was able to answer questions and give me what they believed to be the best resources for their positions, which was immensely valuable for the next step.

8. Focus your studies

Now you are prepared to read and study, engaging in the “best-of” for each theological position. Here you will read books and find study materials that are focused on understanding and defending individual positions. For example, if you were studying the issue of predestination, you will be prepared, because of step six, to find and study with those who influence the particular position the most, both historic and contemporary. This, again, is a time to refine and systematize your own thoughts on the subject.

(Sadly, this is the place that most people start. They already have their minds made up and only seek to confirm their prejudice by reading only those who agree with them. Don’t do this. It lacks integrity and does not honor the Lord. Who is to say where you started was right?)

9. Develop your studies in community

Francis Bacon said: “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.” This step forces you to articulate yourself by way of the pen. Write your thoughts. The best thing to do here is to start a community blog. Begin to articulate your position and open yourself up to the critique of others. Write a blog outlining your position and then ask others to give you feedback. This is not setting yourself up to debate your position, but it is a time to refine your position through articulation. Listen to the feedback of others in order to temper and ratify your thoughts. Lay out all of the reasons for your beliefs on the issue, positive, negative, or neutral. By assuming the possibility of a  ”neutral” position, I am assuming that some issues you will not have a definite stance on.

10. Take a position

Some people are in a hopeless spiral of always listening to something new. They get into this method of studying theology and remain forever agnostic. We sometimes call this “academic agnosticism.” This relates to number two. Don’t be scared to take a position. Yes, it will separate you from others who don’t share your conviction, but it is the ultimate purpose of your studies.  While indecisiveness is often the best position you can take (and is taken precisely because you have studied the issue (“informed agnosticism”)), it is not always the best decision. Take a position and hold to it to the degree that your studies will allow.

11. Discover the relative importance of the issue

Just because you may have taken a position does not mean that you are to militantly hold this position. Some theological issues are more important than others and, therefore, require a greater level of commitment. The best way to discover the issues importance is to ask these four questions:

1. How important do the Scriptures make this issue?

2. How important is this issue in the history of the church?

3. How clear is the issue in the Scriptures?

4. How clear is the issue in the history of the church?

Find out more about distinguishing between essentials and non-essentials.

12. Start all over

 Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism: 4 Views
• Why I Teach (and Blog) the Way I Do
• Doing missions in your own backyard (Cultural Prolegomena)
• Through Theology in a Year: Introduction to Theology Session 1
• Through Theology in a Year: Introduction to Theology Session 2

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

We Evangelicals talk a lot about essentials and non-essentials. Rightly so. We talk about distinguishing between those areas in our faith – those doctrines – which are central or “cardinal” doctrines, and those which are not so important. However, we often have trouble when someone asks us to define, distinguish, and defend this whole “essentials/non-essentials” distinction.

I have written on this many times, but I am going to attempt to be somewhat comprehensive here. That translates to “long article forthcoming.” But I think that this exercise is representative of a pressing issue in Christian discipleship. So put on your seat belt. It is going to get bumpy.

At the Credo House of Theology (our headquarters in Edmond, Oklahoma), right when you walk in the front door, you see written on the wall the Latin words in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Translated into English, this means, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase (often wrongly attributed to Augustine) comes from an otherwise obscure German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius. It has served as a place holder for a sort of Evangelical credo or statement of faith (hence, it is the first thing you see at the “Credo” house). It expresses the idea of orthodoxy and grace existing together. It reminds us that there are essential Christian beliefs and there are those matters of lesser importance.

I remember hearing a pastor once say concerning doctrine, “You are either one-hundred percent right or one-hundred percent wrong. There is no in-between and there are no gray areas. God is not confused or unsure. Why should we be?” While this might be true concerning God, for us, things are different. For now, we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12). While we have our share of those with more of a fundamentalist mindset, who have a thousand lines drawn in the sand in the name of truth, we also have our share of liberals, whose mindset compels them to erase as many lines as possible in the name of grace or love. We must be careful, balancing grace and truth.

Defining Essentials and Non-Essentials

Paul spoke about those things that are “of first importance [protois]” (emphasis mine). Christ spoke about straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:24) and the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). The very existence of creeds and pithy statements of faith in the Bible evince the truth that there are many issues that are of “first importance.” Here are a few examples of biblical creeds and succinct statements of faith:

Deut. 6:4:
Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

1 Cor. 12:3:
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 15:3-7:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (emphasis mine)

Phil. 2:6-11:
[W]ho, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Tim. 3:16:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Heb. 6:1-2:
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

1John 4:2:
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.

Each one of these represents an early summary of Jewish/Christian belief, focusing in on the most important issues.

As I said, this is one of the things that (should) distinguish us as Evangelicals. We are those who unite around those things that we believe are the weightiest, the things that are the most important, while we (should) give (some degree of) liberty in the non-essentials. I often tell people that there are some things which I believe that I would die for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things which I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.

Like in all areas of life, we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. But in order to do this, we must first come to know the difference between essentials and non-essentials.

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

Here I want to elaborate upon and expand the discussion a little bit. While we need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, we also need to recognize that there are different types of essentials. Along with this goes my belief that there are different ways to “break fellowship” based on our beliefs. In other words, not all essentials are equal. Some are essential to the very foundation of Christianity, but some are only essential to a particular denomination or expression. This will require different types of breaks in fellowship.

Let me start with a chart, then I will briefly break it down:

click on chart to enlarge

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved. Hence, it is at the center of the circle.

What I include:

• Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)

Issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:

• Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
• Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
• Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
• Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

As with all of them, I am sure that there are some ancillary matters that could be included, but this gives you the key doctrines. Without these, you simply don’t have any sense present of what it means to be a Christian.

Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy: These include beliefs “essential for salvation” but are broader in that they express what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter which tradition. This is expressed by the Vincentian Canon (434 A.D.): “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” The exception of fringe movements has never been valid for this canon. It is simply asking, “What have all Christians everywhere always believed?”

Some of what I include:

• The doctrine of the Trinity as expressed at Nicea
• The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully man and fully God) as expressed at Chalcedon
• The belief in the future second coming of Christ
• A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
• A belief in God’s transcendence (his metaphysical distinction from the universe)
• A belief in God’s immanence (his present activity in the world and our lives)
• A belief in God’s sovereignty (while there are different ways to define sovereignty, this basically purports that God is in control)
• Belief that Christ is the only way to a right relationship with God
• Belief in eternal punishment of the unredeemed

To be sure, some of these doctrines “develop,” or mature, but their maturation is only in relation to their seed form which preexisted their more mature expression. (For more on this, see here.)

Please notice that these are essential, even if they are not as essential as those expressed in the previous category. In other words, these do not represent negotiables. These are still cardinal doctrines.

But we could also include in this section a grouping entitled “Essential for Historic Orthopraxy.” This would include all of those practices and sins about which the church has been united in its belief. This would include humility, helping the poor, belief that homosexuality is a sin, issues of stewardship, respect for the imago dei (which would deem abortion wrong), and the need to evangelize the lost.

Essential for traditional orthodoxy: Again, these will necessarily include all of those from the two previous categories, but add some distinctives of their own. Essentials here will include all of those that are foundational to one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. These are beliefs that distinguish one tradition from the next, but are not absolutely essential from the broader Christian worldview expressed above.

Some Protestant distinctives would include:

• General belief in the major pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief in the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
• Belief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
• Belief that Scripture alone has ultimate and final authority on all matters of faith and practice
• The canon of Scripture made up of 66 books (excluding the Deuterocanonical books)

Some Roman Catholic distinctives would include:

• Belief in transubstantiation (the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ)
• Belief that justification is through faith and works
• Belief that both Scripture and unwritten tradition have ultimate authority as they are interpreted by the Magisterium
• Belief in the authority of twenty-one ecumenical councils
• Belief that the Pope is the infallible vicar of Christ
• Belief in the Marian dogmas
• Belief that the canon includes the Deuterocanonical books

Some Eastern Orthodox distinctives would include:

• Belief in the infallibility of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief that the liturgy of the Church is part of the Gospel
• Rejection of substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Adam’s sin
• Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him (theosis)
• Traditional inclusion of the Deuterocanonical book (although there is some debate about this)

Again, for each one of these tradition, these represent essential distinctions which, while not as cardinal as those in the previous two categories, are important nonetheless.

Essential for denominational orthodoxy: This will be similar to the above, but one step down in importance, dealing as it does with the particular and peculiar denominational expressions by the various Protestant traditions.

Some examples:

• Credo-baptism, i.e., Baptism is only for believers (Baptists)
• Infant baptism (Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans)
• Unconditional election (Reformed and Presbyterians)
• Arminian theology (Methodists, Nazarenes)
• Belief in the continuation of the Charismatic gifts (Pentecostals, Church of God)

While these might be considered worthy of breaking local fellowship in practice, they are not important enough to break ultimate fellowship. In other words, these represent legitimate debates that should not affect our unity.

Important but not essential: These are those beliefs that do not describe any particular tradition necessarily. They are important, but not that important.

Some examples:

• Beliefs about particulars in the creation debate
• Belief whether the books of Jonah and Job are historical accounts
• Beliefs about the authorship of 2 Peter
• Belief about particular end-time schemes (i.e. premillennial, amillennial, post-millennial)
• The order of books in the canon
• Which translation of the Bible to use from the pulpit
• Which Gospel was written first
• How often one should celebrate the Lord’s supper
• Whether or not Christ taught in Greek or Aramaic

Not Important: These are beliefs that people have concerning Christian doctrine that are not important for any expression and do not affect Christian devotion or spirituality.

Some examples

• The date of Christ’s birth (Christmas)
• What kind of music to play at church
• Whether to use real wine or grape juice at communion
• Whether to hold Saturday night services
• Whether or not John the Baptist was an Essene

Pure speculation: That is just what these are – speculation. We just don’t know one way or another, nor does it matter.

Some examples

• Did Adam have a belly-button? (yes, he did…it would just look funny otherwise)
• Belief in the eternal destiny of pets? (except I know my dog Rocky is going to heaven)
• What was God doing “before” creation? (creating hell for those who speculate such things)
• Will there be meat to eat in heaven? (we can all hope)
• Will there be sex in heaven? (we can all hope more)
• How long was it before Adam and Eve fell? (two hours after Eve was created . . . ask me why some other time)

So far, my purpose has been to stimulate a deeper level of thought about the difference between essentials and non-essentials. Really, I just want to convince you that there are different levels of essentials and non-essentials.

Now (take a deep breath), let’s move on and talk about the criteria which makes a doctrine essential.

Defending Essentials and Non-Essentials

So far so good? I can hear the objections:  ”This all sounds really nice. But who decides what are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines? The Pope? Your local church pastor? The SBC? Al Mohler? Or is it my private interpretation of the Scripture? Alas, with such a question, the divisions start all over. “In essentials, unity.  Sounds nice, but impractical.”

I don’t think we have to be so pessimistic about this. I actually think that there are certain criteria that most thoughtful people can agree constitute the foundation of our faith – the essentials. I have them narrowed to four in no certain order. It is important to note that I am persuaded that all four must be present for a doctrine to be considered essential for salvation or essential. These criteria would pertain only to the first two circles: 1) Essential for salvation and 2) Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy.

1. Historicity: Does the doctrine have universal historical representation?

This first criterion is one of historical agreement. This is a form of “consensual faith” (consensus fidelium). This criterion of universal consensus follows the canon of Saint Vincent of Lérins mentioned above: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always, by everyone.” In other words, an essential cannot be something new like the doctrine of the Rapture. Neither can it be something that has lacked historic unity by Christians across time like the perpetual virginity of Mary. As well, it cannot have limited geographic representation, like certain Eastern liturgy. The question here is, Have all Christians of all time everywhere believed it?

2. Explicitly Historical: Does the history of the church confess their centrality?

This is like the first but differs in an important way. Here we are saying that if the history of the church has not explicitly confessed this as a central issue, then it is not. For example, the history of the church may confess that the Christian worldview includes a firm confession of a belief in the historicity of the Flood narrative, but it has never been a part of the central teachings to the degree that a denial of such is a damnable offense. When combined with the first criteria, the exception cannot define the rule. The point here is that we take seriously God’s work in the history of the Church through the Holy Spirit. If the church has universally believed that a certain doctrine is both true and central to the Christian faith, that doctrine deserves serious consideration as being among the essentials.

3. Biblical Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine represented clearly in Scripture?

One of the principles that the Reformers sought to communicate is that of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. The Reformers did not believe that all of the Scripture was clear (a misunderstanding of the doctrine of perspicuity), but that all that is essential for salvation is clear. In short, if something in Scripture is obscure, then it is not essential. Augustine even held to such a principle stating that one must not build doctrines on obscure passages (On Christian Doctrine). For example, one should not build essential doctrine on what the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19) are, or what it means to be “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29). Unfortunately, both Catholics and Mormons have done just that. If a passage is obscure, no essential doctrine can be derived from it.

4. Explicitly Biblical: Does any passage of Scripture explicitly teach that a certain doctrine is essential?

The Scriptures speak about a great many things, but it is explicit regarding that which is of essential importance. For example, as I noted before, Paul says to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4; emphasis mine). The “of first importance” tells us that Christ’s death and resurrection “for our sins,” from Paul’s perspective, are essential components of Christianity. Without such, according to Paul, there is no Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12ff). As well, the Gospel of John speaks about the importance of faith. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18). This passage explicitly makes faith central.

Again, these four criteria, I propose, must all be present. I think I am committed to this. If one or more is lacking concerning a particular doctrine, I believe that it is not possible for one to legitimately argue for its core necessity. (But again, this does not mean that the issue is not important.) As well, all four feed off each other and are somewhat self-regulating. In other words, if someone doubts whether something is clear in Scripture, all he or she has to do is look to history.  If something is not clear in the Scripture, we will not find that it passes the test of historicity. This is why it is of vital importance that Christians not only be good exegetes, but also good historians.

Conclusion

For some of you, this is the first time you have been exposed to this way of thinking. I pray that you consider the major points of what I am saying even if you do not agree with the details. I am not an ecumenicist, but I don’t think that we should have ill-will or break fellowship with people unnecessarily. I do believe that we have the right and obligation to define what it means to be “Christian.” While I don’t think we should over-define it to the point where our circle of fellowship is so small that it only includes “you and those two,” we need to be careful, as under-defining our faith is just as dangerous as over-defining it. It is very easy to slip into theological maximalism (fundamentalism) or theological minimalism (liberalism). But we are Evangelicals. This means that we are “centrists,” uniting around the most important issues and giving varying degrees of liberty in less important issues. While it is true that because something is non-essential this does not make it negotiable, it is also true that because something is believed strongly does not make it central.Similar Posts:

• Essentials and Non-Essentials: How to Choose Your Battles Carefully
• What are the essentials to Christianity? Four Criteria
• Evangelicals: We Can and Must Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials Better
• Four Types of Theologians
• More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession

The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?

Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):

1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.

2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture? No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in everything it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.

3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t have to accept it.

4. Problem with creation account in Genesis? No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)

5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil? Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.

6. Problem with the doctrine of election? I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on your choice. There . . . the sting is gone.

7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ? Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.

Next…

8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t have to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.

9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin? Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not universally condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.

Next…

10. Problem with male headship in the church and family? This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”

Okay. I am done with the examples…

Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are some legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.

However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?

While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.

I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?

I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism (3): Changing the Horse
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

When I enrolled, I was one of only one hundred on-campus students. What I did not know when I enrolled was that they were all charismatics. Not only this, but most of them were pretty radical charismatics. Every one of them spoke in tongues. Every one looked for prophets. And all believed very deeply that we should expect God to work miraculously in our lives. Now, if you knew me at the time, you would know that I felt that I was in the devil’s den. In 1997, I was sure that if you spoke in tongues, you probably had a demon.

However, after a few months of being in class with these “demon-filled-maniacs,” the ice began to break. It was very challenging for me, as I wanted my heart (and head) to stay in the freezer. But as I sat next to this one young man each day (I don’t even remember his name), did projects with other students, and fellowshipped over lunch with so many of the students and teachers, I could not help but allow the culture shock move me toward a massive reorientation of perspective. I remember thinking to myself, “This guy I sit next to each day is a great guy.” He did not seem to be demon-possessed at all. In fact, his basic confession about Christ, the Bible, and so many other things were the same as mine. Many of the students, I remember thinking, live out their Christian life with greater passion and love than I do.

So there I was, taking classes on interpreting dreams, dodging “prophets” who came to prophesy over students during chapel, and remaining silent while other students told of their bizarre experiences, having fellowship with brothers and sisters in the Lord who were very different from me. Sheesh, they even elected me as Student Council president—the one guy who not only did not speak in tongues, but did not believe in it.

Simply put, this experience broke my heart. It was the first time I realized I did not have everything figured out. And it would not have come without the culture shock.

Take a turn with me for a moment…

One thing I often told people as a physical fitness trainer is that they would have to change their routine in order to stimulate muscle growth and strength change. The basic principle is this:  if someone sticks with the same routine for too long, their muscles will adapt and not be challenged any longer. Therefore, they must continually be mixing things up. Sometimes this routine change would be minor, like changing from one group of machines (Cybex) to another (Icarian), or going from light to heavy weight.  Another minor change would be simply to adjust the way one sits on a machine.

Other times the changes would be more radical like doing the same chest press machine for a total of one hundred repetitions, instead of the normal three sets of fifteen on three different chest press machines.

But every once in a while, I would have people do something more unorthodox. I would have them exercise with someone who has entirely different goals in their training. This would sometimes involved doing aerobics or kick boxing. Other times it might be swimming laps instead of doing weights. The point is to drastically change your workout ever so often to stimulate advancement, change, and growth. The goal in each of these is to “shock the muscles,” as us trainers would call it.

This same principle holds true when it comes to theological and intellectual growth. We must be continually challenging ourselves in many ways. Some of these will be minor and some will seem downright unorthodox. But if you do not do this, your education will be limited to a confirmation of prejudice – which is not really education at all. If you do not do this, at best, there will be no change; at worst, your intellectual muscles will begin to atrophy. Your heart will be ice when God does not want it to be.

Ways to shock your theological/intellectual muscles:

• Make sure that you have unbelieving friends who can challenge you. They ask great questions.
• Make sure you have friends of other theological traditions. Treat them well. Listen to them. Watch their lives.
• Examine the best defense of positions with which you currently do not agree. Their adherents have reasons for believing the way they do; they are not just stupid.
• Attend a church outside your tradition at least six times a year. Why six? It just sounded like a good number.
• Blog your thoughts and interact with others on other blogs. This will force you to articulate your thinking in a much more precise way.
• Get out of your cultural environment at least once a year. This may be something minor like visiting the homeless shelter downtown, or it may be something more like going on a mission trip to the other side of the world.
• Enter into discussions in web forums of other traditions and beliefs (though don’t neglect fellowship with those who agree with you).

In all of these things, be ready to change. You are not doing this to solidify your own position, but to learn.

While we all have a exercise routine that is very valuable, we need a shock every so often. We also have a spiritual and theological routine. It needs a shock as well.

While I have not changed in my basic position about the charismatic gifts, I no longer think all charismatics are demon-possessed! I have changed in my attitude, assurance, and disposition concerning those who disagree with me. More importantly, this lesson goes well beyond my relationship with charismatics. I now try to be very careful with how I judge others. This is the best lesson I could have learned.Similar Posts:

• Exercise and Theology
• Dieting Essentials and Theology Essentials
• Why I Don’t Think Much Of the Spiritual Formation Movement
• I like “Second Service Christians” Better
• Are We Theological Bots?

True or not, that is not the issue. Here is what I found to be fascinating: often people would take these “new discoveries,” promote it to everyone they know, and it would become the basis for their hopes of physical well-being. People would be so willing to set aside fundamentals for fads. Sometimes they would quit going to the gym altogether and just eat mustard.

I did my best to make these fads become 99% transparent. In other words, I did not want people to be looking for the easy magic cures. There were three things that I preached with ultimate conviction:

1) Cardio: People need to keep their heart rate up consistently for at least 30 minutes a day, five or more days a week. This involves running, walking, bicycle, elliptical, treadmill, or whatever you can do for a long period of time that keeps your heart rate moderately high.

2) Resistance Training: People need to keep their muscle mass up. This is healthy for many reasons, not the least of which being that it keeps your metabolism vigorous. This is accomplished through weight training. You know, lat pull downs, curls, push-ups, pull-ups, leg press, squats, and the like.

3) Caloric Intake: Simply put, if you want to maintain your weight, you eat as many calories as you burn each day. If you want to lose weight, you eat less calories than you burn each day. It is not really rocket science.

Those are the three fundamentals. So long as people were doing those, I was happy. When people left those for the fads, it was destructive.

In theology, it is very similar. There are some basic fundamentals that define Christianity. There are some things we believe that are at the very heart of our faith. As well, there are also “faddish” doctrines. And, like with exercise, these faddish doctrines have the tendency to grab people’s obsession. The megaphone of truth begins to shout “Eat more mustard! If you don’t eat more mustard, you will die!!”

Now, in exercise, there are fundamentals and there are non-fundamentals. This does not mean that all non-fundamentals are equally unimportant. Indeed, some are much more important than others. For example, concentrating on a certain muscle group each day is important. When I work out, I do back and biceps one day, chest and triceps the next, and legs the last day. This simply makes my workout more effective as it exhausts my muscles to a greater degree. As well, I change machines and routines continually. This keeps my muscles in “shock.” When eating, I try to eat the least amount of calories at night, concentrating then on more protein to keep my appetite suppressed at night (otherwise I sleepwalk to the ice cream!). These non-essentials are important in increasing the effectiveness of my physical well-being routine.

However, theories change here and there regarding the non-fundamentals. For example, when I was getting certified in the early nineties for fitness training, the science of physical fitness said that in order to lose the most weight, doing long, steady cardiovascular workouts was most effective. Now the theory has tweaked. Long is still required, but now they suggest that during your cardio, you attempt to spike your heart rate from time to time. I am not sure if or when this will tweak again. The fundamental stayed the same: cardio training is necessary. The details tweak along the way. I hold on to these second-level issues a lot more loosely than I do the fundamental. Don’t get me wrong, I do hold on to second-level issues, but I have to know that they are not as established or important as first-level details.

There are also third-level issues. These are things that are interesting, but really don’t make much difference at all. In comparison to the foundational issues, these don’t amount to a hill of beans. In exercise, eating mustard to increase your metabolism would be included. We might categorize just about every diet fad that is out there here as well. These things are fun to discuss, but need to be put into perspective.

In theology, we always need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, cardinal issues and non-cardinal issues, foundational issues and non-foundational issues. Some people talk in terms like this:

1. Dogma: Those foundational issues that are essential to the very fabric of the Christian faith. The existence of our eternal God; the doctrine of the Trinity; the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; the universal sinfulness of man, etc. In exercise, these would parallel with the big three mentioned above.

2. Doctrine: Those issues that are very important to our faith, but are not so foundational (and upon which there is legitimate disagreement and “tweaking”). The inerrancy of Scripture, Creation/Evolution, Calvinism/Arminianism, the imputation of sin, etc. In exercise, this would be represented by things like the time of day we exercise, what our routine looks like, what type of calories to eat and when.

3. Discussion: Those issues which are not so important, but sometimes interesting to discuss. In theology, this would include church government, type of worship music and liturgy, and whether or not a snake actually talked in Eden. In exercise, this would be all the fads and mustard seeds.

Unfortunately, what I have found over the years, both in theology and exercise, is that people build churches and ministries around number 3s. The mustard seeds become the emphasis. Working out, cardio, and calorie-watching gets demoted to second place. One’s view about the end times or whether or not a snake literally talked becomes the dogma. This can only happen because most people don’t know how to distinguish between the weight-training and the mustard seeds of theology.

It is sad when eating mustard them becomes the only attempt at well-being people have.

Eat the mustard. Maybe it works, maybe it does not. I don’t know. But focus and teach the essentials before you get to that.Similar Posts:

• Exercise and Theology
• Essentials and Non-Essentials: How to Choose Your Battles Carefully
• “Someone Knows Something I Don’t”
• Evangelicals: We Can and Must Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials Better
• Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell

PLEASE NOTE: this is in no way attempting to be prophetic.

click on graphic to enlarge

My primary goal here is to show my developing perspective on the history of the church. Protestants believe in “development.” Unlike the Eastern Orthodox, we are not trying to get back to the beliefs and the practices of the first few hundred years of the church. While we, as the graph shows, believe that there are wonderful “states of being” in every life-stage, our desire is to learn from the past and mature.

DNA: DNA is the basic building blocks of life. Everything you are has been encoded on your unique DNA from your conception. In the church, the DNA never changes. Further life-stages are merely a working out, maturation, and development of this DNA. When God’s special revelation was finalized at the completion of the canon of Scripture, the DNA code was manifest and ready for development. While the church goes through maturation, the basic doctrinal components will always be recognizable and reflective of its DNA. The DNA determines the orthodoxy and catholicity (universality) of the church.

Infancy: Like when a child is born and just beginning to discover and experience the world through sense perception, love, and intimacy, the earliest church, after the death of the Apostles, is birthed into a time of self-realization. On the run from persecution and attempting to find its place in a very diverse world, the church experiences a time of innocence. Words are just being formed. Though the concepts are present, the church lacks the sophistication to articulate itself well. Doctrines such as the Trinity and Atonement are present in seed form, but have yet to find a definite expression.

Adolescence: Like a child who is now out in the real world, expression and discovery are greatly realized. The church, being free to worship due to the civil toleration of its faith, begins to mingle with others, both believers and unbelievers. The purity of the fellowship experienced previously begins to give way to differences and corruptions in the real world. This forces the church to more precisely discover and define itself for the purpose of self-preservation. The great creeds and councils of the church are realized during this time.

Teens: Moving out of adolescence, people enter into the time of life where they are increasing in knowledge, but their lack of wisdom, which can only be gained through experience and critical thinking, creates attitudes and dispositions that can be very immature. Knowing the basics of life and how to express them, we turn into bigger-than-life know-it-alls. The church seems to have gone through its teen years during the “Dark” or Middle Ages. If “Dark Ages” can be used of teens, it seems to fit well with the church. The church over-defines itself and begins to take on an air of arrogance leading to the need for dramatic change. While the DNA is still present, it is during this time that we experience physical, mental, and emotion distortions more than any other.

Twenties: During our twenties, a transformation and maturation takes place that saves us from our rebellious teen years. We often think of our twenties are the “red-faced” era where we are redeeming, restoring, and reforming our lives (which almost ended during the teens!). Experience and mature thinking produce stability and hope. Our parents become “pretty smart people” for the first time. In the maturation of the church, we look to the time of the Reformation for such redeeming stability. The Reformation presented the church with a time of doctrinal reflection, stabilization, and maturation.

Thirties and Forties: During this time, we have a good ten to twenty years of “the real world” behind us. Reflection on ideals, hopes, and dreams presents us with a time of adjustment. Often, unmet expectations, difficulties of marriage, paying bills, and children of our own bring us to the brink of disaster. We call this a “mid-life crisis”. The fork in the road is definite. We have been climbing ropes for a long time. We now either decide to find new ropes or hold on to a certain few more tightly. This seems to where the church is at now. Much doubt, depression, and disillusionment. Many adjustments are being made. Some are abandoning traditional Christianity alltogether, rejecting those things that have been a part of the DNA for tw0 thousand years. Others are losing their grips on the weaker ropes and tightening their grips on the stronger. Either way, we seem to be at a fork in the road.

Fifties and beyond: Though I am not there, I see the fifties and beyond (so long as people make it this far with their sanity in tact!) as a great time of maturity. Here, decisions have been made and values established through both knowledge and experience. We call this “wisdom.” The church, as a whole (in my opinion) has not made it here yet. The “mid-life crisis” that we are in will, hopefully, move us in this direction soon. I pray that we hold on to the right ropes (though I know we will—Matt. 16:18).

Again, please understand, this is not prophetic or predictive in any way. Also understand that this concerns the church as a whole, not necessarily every individual in the church. I could expand on this quite a bit more, but then I would be forcing things too much into these categories (the analogy can only go so far). That is not what I am trying to do. I am merely presenting this as a “philosophy of Church history” that can help people understand the maturation process of the church while accounting for and appreciating the change and difficulties that arise along the way.

May God be glorified through the maturing of the church and may the Holy Spirit give us wisdom to continue to grow as the Body of Christ.Similar Posts:

• “How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief” or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic
• Not “Something on a Stick”
• Doing Philosophy Under the Cross
• The Anatomy of Belief (3): Belief Without Conviction
• Orthodoxy, Theological Maturity, and the Development of Doctrine: From Theological DNA to Maturity