Grace & Peace

My Greek prof at DTS, Dan Wallace, has a heart for fundamentalists who tend to put all doctrines on equal footing, such that, for one to disagree with a particular theory of Bible translation, for example, is to disagree with all subsequent categories of doctrine. He's known too many students who were raised in strict fundamentalism walk away from the faith when they found that their particular theory of Bible Translation was untenable.

So, in Greek III, he spends a good amount of time talking about the importance of developing one's "Doctrinal Taxonomy" while in seminary. This is essentially a prioritization of doctrines. In other words, through your studies with your guides and peers, you will learn that the doctrine of the Trinity is much more important than one's beliefs about spiritual gifts, etc. (As an aside, if you're thinking about going to seminary, having wise people guide you through the process of thinking out this taxonomy is worth the trip. Before I went to DTS, I had a very vague notion of how to sort out the important questions/issues, from less important or even inconsequential matters. EVERYTHING seemed equally important, which after a lot of reflection, simply isn't the case.)

My close friend and fellow pastor, John Gram, has written an eloquent and succinct post outlining the difference between "Domino Theology" and "Archery Theology." It's Wallace's illustration for being savvy and wise when it comes to "keeping the main things the main things." And/or "How not to despair and give up on Christianity when some postmodern PhD asks you a hard question about the Problem of Evil." The post is easy to understand, and quite helpful. Click here.

Commenting on Genesis 12 tonight, Larry asked, "Is this a case where we have a mountain of Mishnah out of a molehill of Torah?" I thought that was a brilliant way to ask the question. Larry modestly said he didn't come up with it, which is probably true (though he's quite witty enough to have come up with it on his own). The image refers to extra-biblical Jewish literature that comments on the text including laws and tradition.

Genesis 12 has generated a lot of scholarly literature. Some of it excellent, a lot of it highly speculative. We talked briefly of the proper role of speculation in theological method. There is a time and place where it is appropriate, principally for testing the rational coherence of an interpretation. However, it is wise to make sure hypothetical and speculative interests don't outweigh the more important questions the text is asking and answering. The point is well-illustrated in a proverbial story in which a student asked his theology professor, "What was God doing before He created the world?" The professor made his point by replying, "Creating Hell for the overly curious!"

Good theological method works to "keep the main thing the main thing"--properly prioritized, and well-disciplined when faced with the temptation to speculate.

I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F. [Royal Air Force], an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, 'I've no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I'm a religious man too. I know there's a God. I've felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that's just why I don't believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who's met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!'

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

A while back, I noticed that a friend of mine had, "Love Jesus, Hate religion" as her Religious Views on Facebook. I understand the sentiment. What my friend means to say is that she has a personal relationship with Christ, but is not so fond of the institutions that claim to follow Him. Likely this is a way to engage others who are fed up with (or have been burned by) institutional religion. "Jesus isn't the problem. Jesus is cool. It just His followers whom I can't stand, with all their rules and hypocrisy and petty infighting, sectarian differences, etc." Or, on a larger scale, "Religion is a cause of every major conflict the world has ever seen, and continues to see today. If the Muslims and Christians could just agree that Jesus is cool, and follow his teachings to 'love thy neighbor' than we could be rid of all the killing. I'm not like any of the so-called Christians you've met before. I follow the Way of love, and I hate rules and hypocrisy. Let's talk."

Please understand, I am not about to pick on my friend. I know that she is a dedicated Christian who sincerely desires to engage others in religious dialogue. I am, however, offering a critique of the method. I think words matter. Especially words found in the Scriptures. If you broadly claim, even broadcast, that you hate "religion" without any nuance or qualification whatsoever, then you forfeit an important Biblical term. James writes, "Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world (James 1:27, The Message). So, James likes religion. In fact, the very best religion is that which cares for defenseless people (i.e., orphans and widows).

Similarly, many have jettisoned the word "Christian" for the less hypocritical "Christ Follower." Again, the word is an important Biblical term (see Acts 11:26). Followers of Christ have been called "Christians" for more than 20 centuries. Is it important to drop the term because of bad ambassadors?

Nit picking? Quarreling over words? Hopefully not. I'm just asking for a bit of nuance. If you love Jesus and hate religion, I'll ask why you hate caring for orphans and widows. But if it's hypocrisy you hate, or false religion, than simply say so.

Finally, please understand that I understand that bumper sticker slogans and t-shirts are designed to be provocative--to blow up categories (barriers, even) in order to promote a healthy conversation. I'm all for it. And I'll even do it on occasion. But with awareness that some of those categories will have to be remade further on down the road. I'm a Christian. I love Jesus, and real religion.