Tony Jones on Al Mohler's Radio Program Tonight

I just started listening to the conversation between Tony and Russel Moore. I had to stop and comment before I continue because Russell said something interesting. He was describing how he was concerned about the Emerging Church and the possibilities of it doing away with 2000 years of American Christianity. That is part of the problem with mainline evangelicalism right there. The idea that American Christianity somehow dates back 2000 years. That what we practice in the US is Christianity and the rest of the world needs to learn from us. That somehow we have a greater stake in the gospel than the rest of the world does. We have the right answers and everyone needs to come and learn from us about the 2,000 years of unified American Christianity. There are so many issues with this statement, one of them being that Christianity been mainly affected by people and countries other than America historically. Not that America hasn’t done any good or had anything to offer, but that saying 2,000 years of American Christianity is in itself a statement that shows a lack of understanding of historical Christianity. This isn’t meant to be a comment to be a jerk towards Russell or some of the others who align with his world view, but rather to point to the error in thinking Christianity is either American or 100% unified through history, which is what the emergent church movement gets attacked for all the time.

Just for the record, Tony’s paper wasn’t rejected by InterVarsity Press – it was rejected by the Wheaton folks who determine which papers ultimately end up in the book. IVP lobbied strongly for the inclusion of Tony’s paper, but alas, Wheaton didn’t see it that way.

Thanks, Al, I’ve updated the post accordingly!

I’m brand new to the emergent conversation, but I caught this radio program, and the most frustrating thing for me, a listener, about it was the degree of dodging from both sides: Moore’s answering Jones’ genuine historical issues with sweeping generalities, and Jones’ dodging of Scripture by jumping all over Evangelicals’ use of the a-word (“absolute”, that is). Of course, this was a conversation, not a debate, but I wonder if it would have been a more profitable use of everyone’s 37 minutes if the two could have focused it more on God’s words rather than man’s.

Thanks for updating it! Much appreciated.

Brian,
Moore says he agrees that it (Am Church) needs to change. His reference to 2000 years is more about Augustine and Luther than about “Little House on the Prairie” churchianity.

Jeremy, great points. I am very concerned about the focus on ‘man’s’ viewpoint. Unfortunately, that is really all I am hearing from the Emer crew, quite honestly.

Moore agrees that the American church needs to change not in new ways, but just doing what they have done better. Part of the problem for the American church in general is that it has lost sight of Christian history before the 16th century. I love much of the reformation, but Christianity existed for centuries before it. Our current churches are not as influenced by earlier thinkers, theologians and pastors nearly as much as they are by the Reformation leaders who were great. Part of the problem for many, including myself, is that we fail to incorporate and appreciate the whole of Christian history, and instead act as thought we went from the second century to the reformation. Somehow after Paul came Luther. The church has not always existed in the form that it is now, in the methods and ways. There may have been certain aspects of it that are constant such as communion..etc. But even scripture took a few hundred years to be completed and recognized by in the New Testament form that it is now. The church has always been more dynamic than we give it credit for. More in flux then static. The reason I point these things out and the first post I made above, is because many people who disagree with ALL of Tony’s paper and write it off as false fail to grasp these ideas. They see Christian history as always completely unified and fixed. That simply isn’t true. There were many disputers and errors made by the church that were later made right. The Shepherd of Hermas was very close to making it into the cannon. In fact some authoritative leaders first included it as authoritative and then only later withdrew their support. The main point that I hear Tony making (I may be wrong) is not that anything goes, but that what we paint as black and white is many times gray. Because theology is more dynamic than static, more of happening than happened, it changes the way you think and view many things. Not only does it change the way you think (orthodoxy), it changes the way you view others and the way you interact with them (orthopraxy). This is the point that Russell Moore and others miss. The Southern Baptist Convention does not have all the answers. They do not have the only claim on the Bible and the only authoritative interpretations of it.

At this point many who tend to lean to the right politically and religiously are ready to use the word heretic because you think I don’t have a high view of God. In fact I do, I just don’t have a high view of man. It is not that I doubt God or even his ability to get past the failures of man’s ability to comprehend the world around him. It is just that I find it hard to believe that God has given one denomination the “absolute” truth perfectly. Many of you who do not support Tony’s paper say that Tony doesn’t believe in absolute truth. But what do you mean by absolute truth? Truth that comes from God, that God is the origin and source of all truth? I can’t speak for Tony, but I agree with that. This is not simply what you mean. You mean to say that not only is God the source of all truth, but that some human beings, institutions or denominations have discovered completely clearly this absolute truth from God. So that when you speak of your communion practices and baptism and charismatic gifts belief (whatever they may be), you believe that what you believe is absolute truth about these things because you say you get them from the Bible or because God illuminated your mind. The problem is, in many cases, that there are millions of other Godly believers who walk in the grace of Jesus Christ who would say the same thing you do, but they believe differently. You both may accept that communion is to be practiced in the body of Christ, but what it is and how it is to be practiced is a place of disagreement. What do you do with this? You are both Godly, you both love God and get your viewpoints from his word. You both are involved in the local church and are cultivating a life with God through the disciplines. You both look and ask for wisdom from God, and yet not only do you two disagree, but their are millions just like you. From this dilemma I believe you have two lines of reasoning that are possible. One of you God guided into truth and the other one God for some reason decided to lead astray. Or the other possibility is that God guided both of you into separate truths. Both of these possibilities are lacking. Another third possibility exists, but not under the same premises listed before. The third possibility exists in that God is the source of all truth, God illuminates man into conversion even, but God does not give man straight shots of absolute truth. Rather God enables man, despite his failings, culture, experiences, and other limiting factors, to understand and come to a fuller grasp of truth as man seeks God in community, through the Spirit and with humility. The problem is that we are limited in our ability to grasp truth, to see it clearly because of our own selfish desires and the other factors listed above. This doesn’t mean we cannot know anything, it just means we can’t this side of heaven know all things. Only this view accounts for the diversity of beliefs among Godly people who are both seeking God for truth. It doesn’t mean that God can’t work supernaturally to overcome human error, it just means that just like God giving us His word that it is the primary way. God never gives a human all the understanding of his word ever this side of heaven. Many people have taught and continue to teach because of cultural influences, not from the Bible, that the truth they have came from God an the other millions of Christians are absolutely wrong because they have received absolute truth. It is not that I don’t believe that one can’t be closer to the truth than another, it is just that you live with more humility and though you hold strong convictions you are open to the Spirit of God and the body of Christ (universal), changing you. If you are open to the possibility that you and others in the past have missed it on certain areas, and that people in the future will miss it, then you realize that theology always has a sort of happened, yet happening quality to it. It is not a free for all, it is based on God’s supremacy, God’s Spirit and the church. It is not an individual, man exalting ideology as many have tried to make it out to be. And contrary to what Russel Moore says, it is not a bunch of people sitting around in black turtle necks with candles.

I Am also new to the emergent conversation and as such have not yet heard such strong criticism of it. (although I thought I had. ) I am so frustrated by the lack of understanding and ignorance of the past and documented history. I guess those that disagree with what the emerging church is will have to find out in time that this generation of people are not going to buy what the christian church has been selling anymore. Tony makes a great point, any university or college student (or anyone with a computer) can easily research the history of the christian church. And have some questions. Then what? Make a blanket statement, fade in some music and go to commercial? My friends, coworkers and family are missing out on Christ because of this black and white, just listen to me kind of christianity.

Brian,
I am a southern baptist and I think you are missing the point of our understanding of truth. We do not believe we have discovered truth perfectly nor have we ever made such a claim. We believe we have received a perfect source of truth, the Bible, because God says that it contains everything we need to be made complete and to be equipped for His service (2Timothy 3:16,17). Also we don’t now, nor have we ever, claimed to have it all figured out. What we do know is that some things taught in the Scriptures are absolutely clear and beyond misunderstanding – we believe, teach, and rely upon those teachings. For example in John 14:6, Jesus said that He is the only way to the Father. We proclaim that Jesus alone is the way to the Father. Another example is when Jesus said (recorded in John 3:18-19) that anyone who does not believe in Him will remain condemned before God. That is something we can be absolutely sure of because it is an unambiguous statement, and no amount of philosophy, or sociology, or science, or psychiatry will change what Jesus said or what Jesus meant. Yet emergents try to redefine the meaning of many very clear statements, by calling on the disciplines I just cited to prove that we should view truth differently. In the interview Jones demonstrated the emergent belief that this is how the church has always operated when he brought up interacial marriages. He claimed that southern baptists changed their minds about their opposition to interracial marriages because we learned about how human beings are all the same. That is not true, the demonination changed because the behavior of those S. baptists were challenged by the words of scripture.

We conservative evangelicals in the traditional church, whether we fellowship as baptists, or assemblies of God, or calvary chapels, or wherever, look to the Bible for truth about all things spiritual and for guidance for how to live every area of our lives in God’s will. If we don’t rely upon Scriptures, then we are forced to ride the wild waves of differing doctrines and opinions about what and who God is. God said in Isaiah that His word will never pass away, never fail, and He promises us that He and His word never changes. Because of this I can look to His word, guided by the Holy Spirit to learn and undertand what God says about everything He chooses to reveal. I, nor anyone I know (and I am a pastor which means I know a lot of teachers and their doctrine) believe we have it all figured out, but we do know that everyone has something they rely upon as the ultimate authority for determining what they believe. If it isn’t God’s word then it will be phsycology, science, man’s opinions, or something else. And man’s opinions, and every other man oriented discipline is full of disagreement, changing opinions, and new discovies that change old paradigms, it is not difficult to conclude that whoever relies upon those sources will never be sure that what they believe is true today will still be true tomorrow. So I and my companions choose to look to the Scripture to learn what God says about himself, much in the same way that I look to your post to learn what you have to say.

Unfortunately emergents give primacy to the teachings of philosophers, scientists, and others, rather than looking to God, and that is what has led many of them into grevious misunderstandings about the nature of the gospel, Jesus’ mission, and the traditional church (those emergents that don’t give primacy to man centered systems, at least give them an equal voice). In spite of the fact that God tells us in 1Corinthians that in their pursuit of truth philosophers will reject God’s message, in the Emergent Manifesto of Hope references to philopshers and social scientists out number Biblical references four or five to one. (I am making an educated guess, for I haven’t actually counted the references) In the interview Jones even cited his belief that the church has traditionally reinterpreted the Bible as we learn from scientists and sociologist. While it is true that science has added information about some of the natural processes God uses, there is nothing that science has ever revealed that changed what God says about salvation, Himself,the purpose of His church, the virgin birth,or anything else that is at the heart of the purpose of revelation. Science has shed light on the scenery of scripture (as in a play, the scenery gives us a backdrop for the story) but it has never revealed anything about the primary story of God and humanity (I am not saying that our interraction with the rest of creation is not important, but the heart of the story is God and His relationsip with humanity that is made in His image). As far as philosophy is concerned, it has offered nothing at all to our understanding o God. Philosophy has only served to confuse issues for those who refuse to believe that God says what He means.

Also, we are fully aware that christianity was never perfectly unified over doctrine or anything else for that matter. All one has to do is read the words of Jesus or the letters of Paul to know that. But we also know something else that apparently is getting lost in the emergent conversation: that is even though the scripture was not officially cannonized until 300 something AD that does not mean that the church did not know which writings were scriptural. Almost every time (maybe every single time, for I am leaving open the possibility I missed something in my study of history) a council was called, its purpose was to address some new teaching that challenged or contradicted some established practice or doctrine. The council of Nicea is an example. The triune nature of God had been taught throughout the churchs short history, but when Arias began teaching something different the church had to make an official judgment about the matter (I know there is more to the story than that, but that is the heart of the theological issue). The same is true of the council that was convened to deal with the issue of Scripture. The church had a good understanding of which writings were scripture. That is easily verifyable by the writings of the early church leaders. Church members in various regions thought that a limited number of other writings were also inspired, which the neighboring regions did not also recognize. However there were a select group of writings that virtually everyone in every region agreed were inspired. Those are the books that make up our New Testament.

I hope this helps you to see how the traditional church views the scripture, absolutes, and the limits of our knowledge.

Shawne,
The issue isn’t whether or not the message is black and white, but which black and white message is true.

If you read the emergent authors it shouldn’t take you long to recognize that they claim they are right and traditional Christians are wrong. I have read statements telling me and those I walk along side of that we are unauthentic, holier than thou, arrogant, brain dead, power hungry, hypocritical, know it alls, that have distorted the real message and mission of Jesus, and who are interested only in getting another knotch in our conversion belt so that we can turn our new converts into clones of ourselves that we can control and who will be another financial donor. Statements like that are usually followed by, or surrounded with, an explanation of what the real message of Jesus is; what truly spiritual people do; and what authentic church looks like. That’s pretty black and white…I am out, while emergents are in. I am wrong they are right.

All emergents have really accomplished is trading one black and white theology for another. The question that must be answered is which version truly represents God’s revelation.

Steve,
I am grateful for your responses. I also want you to know that I love the local church, southern baptists, methodists, whatever. I actually graduate college from a conservative southern baptist university. It was a very good experience and I learned much there. I have always grown up, and even know attend a traditional church in many ways. I cannot speak for all people who see much good in emergent, or for Tony Jones, so take this this as only one view from someone who sees much beauty and helpfulness in the Emergent friendship. I happen to be at a libray on a public computer where I can’t spell check my writing and I have typed quickly, so please be patient with the mispellings. In response to your last post…
You said, “we believe we have recieved a perfect source of truth, the Bible..” I agree with you Steve. Although I think of the Word of God first as the person of Jesus Christ, and the Bible as an extention of this person, I agree with your view. I don’t dispute that the Bible is a perfect source, or authorotative, but I do have serious issues with man’s ability to fully comprehend this source perfectly. You never responded to my hypathetical situation in my last post. You say you “look to the Bible for truth about all things spiritual and guidance for how we live every area of our lives in God’s will.” So do I. But how do you deal with Godly people, both humble, who come to God’s word and walk away with two different interpretations on communion, or baptism or anything else? Do you hold Luther’s view or Calvin’s view on the Lord’s supper? You never address all the differences in the church today. You never address how even two southern baptist can view the Bible differnetly to the point that one is an Arminain and one a Calvinist. Does God give them two separate truths when they come, pray earnestly, seek humbly? Obviously not. So what happens? You also said, “Yet emergents try to redefine the meaning of many very clear statements, by calling on disciplines I just cited…” If the scripture is always so clear, why are there so many differnet views? Even if you don’t appeal to other disciplines (example of philosophy) over the Bible, which I don’t, there are still many differences within Christians who are conservative. How can you account for these? You said, “If we don’t rely upon Scriptures, then we are forced to ride the wild waves of differing doctrines and opinions about what and who God is.” But many people have relied on scripture, and have differing doctrine. And I am not talking about people a conservative may think is liberal, I am talking about within conservative Christianity. That is the point Steve, many beleivers (like Luther and Calvin) have relied on scriptures and walked away with different conclusions. During the reformation some Anabaptist were drown for their beleifs on baptism by some reformers or people in the reformers camp. Is this absolute truth in action? If you really believe that the church is not right about all things, “We do not believe we have discovered truth perfectly nor have we ever made such a claim.” Then what things can you be certain of? If you are unsure that you have discovered the truth perfectly, then what truths that you have discovered are absolute and which ones are not? How do you decide? My point is not that you shouldn’t believe strongly, for I absolutely do, my point is that your system of truth is too rigid and will not hold up under the weight of scrutiny. The problem is not that God’s truth is not perfect, is that you don’t have the perfect ability to perfectly interpret it. If you don’t have the perfect abiltiy to intepret it then most likely something in your current beleif system is wrong. Not because God is wrong, or failable, but because you are failable. We are plagued by our selfish desires, cultures, personalities and life experiences. God could work otherwise, but he choses to mold us overtime. He doesn’t perfect his body perfectly this side of heaven, but only when glorification takes place. All of that to say that you do not approach God’s word objectively, and God typically doesn’t give individual humans a straight shot of all his truth the moment of conversion. So what exaclty is absolute truth? If you say God’s truth, I am all on board. If you say everything I beleive about God, then I think you are thinking too highley of your own abilities. It’s not that I think I don’t have a grasp on any truth. And it is not that I don’t earnestly pursue God, or his word. His special revelation, the Bible, has the primary place in my understanding and discipline life. This would stand in stark contrast to, “Unfortunately emergents give primacy to the teachings of philosophers, scientists, and others, rather than looking to God, and that is what has led many of them into grevious misunderstandings about the nature of the gospel, Jesus’ mission, and the traditional church (those emergents that don’t give primacy to man centered systems, at least give them an equal voice).” The person of God and his disclosed revelation, are the highest authorities in my life followed by the body of Christ. I want to know who decided what orthodox teaching was or is? The first council, second, or the seventh? What about later…the Pope? Martin Luther? Who decided what orthodox teaching was during the reformation? Who decides what orthodox teaching is today? The Methodists? The Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Free churches? Do you? Or me? Point me to the one encompassing orthodox teaching, the document that has been believed everywhere by all people from all places? There shoudl be such a thing right? Surely there has been a document that has always encompassed what has always been believed? A document that we could hold up to Baptists, Methodists, Charasmatics..etc and see which ones are orthodox and which ones aren’t? If the nature of orthodoxy is the absoltue truth of God clearly and indisputedly displayed, then show it to me.
The problem is you can’t because the only document is the Bible, which is really an extension of a person. Although I do agree with you that somethings are more clearly laid out, like Christ is the way, the truth and the life who has come, there is way more tension in the Bible than we give it credit. There is way more human limitations involved in interpreting the Bible than we give way. It is impossible to objectively approach the Bible. Because God doesn’t compltely transform our human limitations until glorification, then we must think carefully about throwing aroudn words like absolute. Some believers thought it was absolutely clear that Christians should have slaves during the 1800’s. It is easy to say they wrongly interpreted scripture, but tiem and again people have wrongly interpreted scripture in a way that caused great heart devastation. Time and again people who were absolutely sure they had discovered God’s absolute truth, have done herendous things only later to realize their “clear teachings were wrong.” Let me close by telling you what I believe.

I beleive that God worked supernaturally through the Scirpture writers and through the councils. But I trust Scripture as an extension of God’s person more than I trust the councils. I believe in the Triune Godhead, even though the word trinity was made up and never found in the Bible. I beleive in Christ and his grace in transforming me into his likeness. I beleive God is the source of all truth. I also believe huamns are so limited in their abilities that I don’t use the term “absolute” to describe all my beleifs. I do beleive that the teachings of Christ are universal in claim. I look to the person of God, then to his disclosing of himself in scripture, followed by historical Christianity, always in community of believers, relying on the Spirit. I beleive that theology is still dynamic, that God is still moving and (not giving us new scriptures, but) still disclosing himself. That the councils and reformers and popes who made decisions throughout history are people like us who God is still calling to follow him, and sometimes in ways like they did. Saying it seems like we missed the point here…this does not line up with scriptures or God’s heart. This doesn’t reflect God’s nature. I know I am infaliable, and that there is no document besides the Bible that contains all of the correct teaching and vision for us to live in the way of Chrsit in the world. It’s not that I don’t have strong convictions, it is just that I know I can’t approach the Bible or God objectively…so I place a huge value on the Spirit and Body of believers and others views on the same passages as we try to interpret what it is saying to us and how it is calling us to live. I know I could interpret it wrongly, so have strong convictions that I hope God uses others to change and mold as needed to bring me more inline with his Person and Teachings.

I really appreciate your posts and the dialogues we have had. Please don’t take my writings as a disliking or belittling of your views, though I disagree. Hopefully we can disagree strongly and yet with grace so that we both come out with a greater understanding of who God is and how he has called us to live in the end.

Brian,
Thanks for your response! YOu are correct (obviously)that I did not deal with the hypothetical situation you presented – let me do that now and hopefully that will go a long way to answering many of your other questions and/or arguments. Let me begin by saying that in many ways I don’t think you and I are that far apart. I knew when I wrote, that some of my characterizations of emergents do not apply to everyone who so identify themselves. Much of those characterizations were based on my reading of emergent leaders like McLaren, Paggitt, Smith Jr., Morgenthaler, and so on. I have had a sufficient number of conversations with every day emergents to know that not all think or believe exactly as they do. Much of what I was saying about abandoning the clear teachings of scripture was a reference to the proposal that salvation is rescuing people from injustice in the here and now and not redemption from sin through the substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection of Christ. I was also referring to the oft cited belief that the Scripture is not the revelation of God but instead is the testimony of witnesses to the activity of God among them as they understood it; that the Spirit chose as the writings He would speak through when the community of believers come together in worship or study. The Holy Spirit speaking through these chosen “witnesses’ accounts” to reveal God to a community of believers is what some emergent leaders understand to be the ongoing nature of theology. In this view, the Bible is not the actual words of God, that contain truths or facts about God, but instead the Bible is only the accounts of the witnesses’ interpretation of God’s activity among them. In this view, the Bible is at best a narrative that tells a story of God’s work to bring all of creation into right fellowship with Him and one another; the Bible is a not source of information about God, and theology’s goal is to understand how the trajectory of the narrative is applied in today’s word, not to discover every thing the Bible teaches about any subject. While I agree that in one sense the Scriptures tell a story, that story also contains details that inform us about the “what’s and why’s” of that story. The emergent understanding of Scripture is inadequate because it ignores some very clear teachings in the Scripture, not to mention ignoring the fact that in some places God’s very words are recorded, not just some retelling of an event; in fact in Deuteronomy and Exodus we not only have God’s very words, we have a record of words that God Himself penned. Also, substitutionary atonement is clearly taught in Scripture, in fact it more than anything else is the moral of the Scriptural narrative. For reasons that I will go into later, I do believe theology is an ongoing endeavor (at least in some ways it is an ongoing endeavor), however doing theology now, for this cultural context, cannot be used as vehicle for redefining clearly stated revelation. I don’t want any one post to be overwhelming so I address the rest of your points incrementally in a series of forthcoming posts.

Brian in this post I will try and respond to your scenario. It is not easy to answer why there are so many differing interpretations of the same texts. One reason is false teachers. Jesus warned us to watch out for false prophets who would be wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15-23) The fact that false teachers exist tells me that there exists right and wrong doctrines, and the fact that we are told to beware of them tells me that God expects us to know the difference between right and wrong doctrine.

Another reason is because some Christians attempt to understand things about God that cannot be understood; either because God hasn’t revealed it to us, or because God we are not ready for it, or because it is an aspect of His nature that is beyond our ability to comprehend. Calvinism vs. Armenialism is a perfect example of something I believe we cannot possibly comprehend. God teaches that He elects people to salvation (Matthew 11:25-27), yet Jesus also teaches that God teaches everyone and those that hear and believe, or in other words those that exercise their free will to believe will be saved (John 6:44-47). Some call this a paradox, but I think that rather than a paradox, it is the expression of God’s sovereignty that is beyond our ability to comprehend. We have nothing in our experience that gives us a reference point for understanding a being like God who is absolutely sovereign. Our experience is only within creation; our only experience is with things that have beginnings and ends, and that are totally reliant upon things outside themselves for continued survival, i.e. air, food, etc. God however has no beginning or end and He does not rely upon anything for life; He truly is self sustaining. We cannot even begin to grasp what that would be like. One thing we do know is that when Isaiah saw God on His throne, Isaiah instantly recognized how utterly inadequate and sinful he was in the presence of one such as God. Some how in God’s sovereignty, He is able to simultaneously give us free will and yet choose who will be redeemed without violating our choice – so that anyone that rejects Him is guilty of choosing to do so. Trying to understand God in this way is similar to trying to explain driving a car to a fish. The fish can know the details, but would have absolutely nothing in his experience that would enable him to understand. In the same way we cannot understand certain aspects of God, yet some people try to define Him in ways that fit into their experience.

I will add more in the next post.

Brian,
Here come some more thoughts. I believe that if you think about it, you will see how many of the differences are caused by people trying to determine things that cannot be grasped by mortal man, or that God has only hinted at, or that are questions resulting from the discussion of other issues, but that God hasn’t really revealed.

Another reason for the differences is immaturity. God says in 1Corinthians that we cannot grasp spiritual truths apart from the Holy Spirit’s enlightening us, and then God tells us that carnality (immaturity) which is acting like natural man and not walking in obedience to that which has been revealed to us, will hinder our ability to understand. In Paul’s letter to the Philippians God tells us that mature Christians should share the same view, and those that don’t will eventually arrive at the same conclusions because God will make it clear to them Philippians 3:15-16). Where we differ God tells us to live up to our understanding. I wholeheartedly believe He commands us to live up to our understanding because when it is our hearts desire to obey Him, even if we don’t understand perfectly, we are in an attitude of submission that He can use to reveal Himself to us, which then fulfills His expectation that mature Christians will agree. Again, the fact that He expects that we will agree tells us that we can understand correctly His revelation.

Another reason for the differences is closely related to the last one – people read God’s word through the lens of their preconceived notions about what is right. My wife is a great example of this. When I met her she was a card carrying, very scary, member of the National Organization of Woman. She was an independent, self-sufficient, man hating, feminazi (to use a Rush Limbaugh phrase). After she began walking with Jesus that attitude did not change. She read the scripture through the lens of her beliefs about men and woman. She latched onto scriptures that supported her views and explained those that did not by saying they reflected the culture of their day. However, after a few years of walking with Jesus, getting to know Him better, and experiencing His incredible love, mercy and grace through horrendous times such as the death of our youngest son, my wife increasingly trusted Jesus and that led her to desire to honor Him. Honoring Him meant that she had to submit to Him in every way. So she consciously chose to start reading the Bible with the intent of allowing God to tell her what to believe rather than using it to support certain beliefs that were dear to her. Over time she realized that while God does say that men and woman are equal in every way that really matters, God also teaches that in some situations He has established roles for each gender. It was a difficult transition, but my wife decided to submit to me as the head of our household. She doesn’t do that because she thinks I am superior in any way, but she does it because it is a form worship and of submission to God. She also refused to hold an authoritative teaching position over men in our church. She will tell you that since making that decision her life has been filled with a peace that she didn’t know before. She will also tell you that God has opened door after door for her to use her Spiritual gifts, and now she has more ministry opportunities than ever and her ministries are producing far more fruit than before. She will also tell you that the man has the more difficult task, for God commands the man to love his wife as Jesus loves the church and if he doesn’t then his prayers will be hindered.

I tell the people in our church that they should make a conscious effort to set aside any prior beliefs about God, as well as any preconceived notions about what is right and wrong, when reading the Bible, and instead allow God to tell them what to believe through His words and the Spirit.

Brian,
Another issue is church history. I believe that the Catholic church in the medieval ages did incredible damage to church doctrine that we are still dealing with today. The history is too complex to go into in much detail, but we must realize that everything changed once Constantine legitimized the church. The church and its officials were given special tax breaks and other advantages that were not available to others, including members of the government. Because it was socially and politically advantageous to be a Christian in Constantine’s Rome, many people joined the church but who didn’t really believe – for many of these so called Christians continued in pagan worship. Because of the special advantages many people who were not necessarily believers sought positions within the church, and as you can imagine, all this had an effect on the doctrines and practices of the church. Also, the legitimization of the church allowed the Bishop of Rome to consolidate power over the church – something he had been trying to do for a long time but that the other Bishops resisted. He was able to accomplish this through political maneuvering. This put the church in a position to be both a religious and secular-political institution. To understand the role of the church in Roman politics, imagine the U.S. having a cabinet level position of Secretary of the State Religion. The official church would be interested in both spiritual issues and state issues. That is how it was in Rome. Sometimes the church made decisions based on the needs of the state, sometimes they made decisions based on spiritual motives, but in all cases they had to be careful to at least preserve their political influence which they did by exercising religious authority. It is in these circumstances that the church sent missionaries across Europe and into other continents to evangelize. However the evangelism was not simply a spreading of the gospel it was almost equally a spreading of political influence. It is in this atmosphere that the church developed certain doctrines that confound those of us today who read the Bible and wonder how they justified such teachings. The medieval church developed its doctrines about the Eucharist which has to be taken in order to receive grace. The church was well known for withholding the Eucharist from Kings and Feudal lords in the effort to force them to agree with the political will of the church or risk eternal damnation. The Church also was well known for threatening Kings and such with giving their subjects permission to violently oust as a heretic any King who continued to defy Rome. As the power of Rome began to wane, and for other reasons, the church increasingly became the center of political life in much of Western Europe. Because the church was expanding its political influence when evangelizing new regions, the church also engaged in the same practice as other conquering nations, of respecting the local religions as much as possible in order to keep the peace among the people. That is partly why we practice Christmas and Easter when and how that we do. The church attempted to adapt some Christian practices with the pagan religious practices of the nations that were converted. This was an attempt to respect local religious beliefs but begin the transition of the culture to Christianity by applying a Christian meaning to those ceremonies. This is a good example of how Christian practice and doctrine has been affected by the nation-state-religion of medieval Christianity. God tells us not to worship false gods, and He also commands us not to worship Him the same way that the pagans worship their gods (Deut. 25:28-32). Yet the early church didn’t obey this teaching and now most Christians participate in pagan practices at least twice a year when honoring two of the most holy days on the Christian calendar. And this practice of adapting paganism to Christianity is regularly cited to justify adapting other practices.

Brian,

Now we come to the reformation. When the reformation began, Luther didn’t want to withdraw from the church, he wanted to transform it. But, as we know, many groups broke away from the church. It should be understood that large parts of the reformation had a political side as well. The reformers needed protection from the Catholic Church by their local governments. In some instances this required certain reformers to agree to retain some particular teaching that the local king had an affinity for (I am going on memory for this). In any case there were lots of debates over infant baptism, re-baptism, the Eucharist, among other topics that divided the reformers. Sometimes this was based on tradition, others were based on practicality (not wanting to remove too much of the tradition which might lead to a backlash) and for other various reasons. Whatever the cause of the differences, we need to recognize the influence of medieval Catholicism on doctrine and we need to recognize the influence of politics on medieval Catholicism. In the end we simply must go to the word to see what it says about baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, the Kingdom of God, and every other subject. When people bring up the issue of differing teachings, I usually just ask them which doctrine are they concerned about and then sit down with them and a Bible. I don’t teach them anything I just show them the verses and allow them to prayerfully consider what is being said, and I answer any questions they might ask. In the end most people come to the same conclusions as most others do about what the Bible teaches, because it is very clear on the essential or core doctrines. Other doctrines are secondary and usually are a bit more ambiguous because they get into areas not fully revealed, or are issues concerning daily life with God, such as why God allows trials, and how we know we are experiencing a trial meant for spiritual fitness as opposed to being disciplined for some unresolved sin. So ultimately we simply need to open the Scriptures and believe that what God reveals there can be discerned, understood, because God will reveal it to us if we will listen. Yes, we are sinful and that does effect the way we understand, but that is the beauty of how God works. He takes His word and begins exposing our sin to us. As we repent and begin thinking and acting differently, we begin to mature and God reveals more of Himself to us. As we respond to that we mature and even more is revealed. Certainly we will not uncover the full depth of God’s word this side of heaven, and maybe not on the other side either, but if we just do what we know to do where we are currently, then God will reveal even more and we will have an even deeper understanding. God will even use the same passage to reveal different things to us at different times and in different circumstances, which is part and parcel of His word being living and active, penetrating deep enough to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and that judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Just read the word like God really means what He says and He will overcome our sinful, self-centered, closed mindedness, and open our eyes to the meaning of everything He wants us to know.

So, I don’t think theology in terms of explaining what God says about Himself, man’s condition before Him, and the issues of salvation is a changing thing that is reformulated in each new culture. There really are only two cultures: those believers in Jesus that view the world according to God’s revelation; and those unbelievers that do not see the world through the eyes of God’s revelation. When Paul went to Athens he presented the Athenians with a different world view than theirs that was based on God’s revelation. When King Hezekiah and Judah were threatened by the commander of Assyria’s army who said that none of the gods of the nations defeated by Assyria could protect them and Judah’s god would not be able to protect them either. King Hezekiah went into the Temple and prayed for help. In his prayer he acknowledged that there is only one God over the entire earth. The world view of Hezekiah which was based on God’s self revelation stood opposed to and contradicted the world view of the Assyrians. They acted on their world view, and Hezekiah acted on his. We Christians are not supposed to change our theology based on the world views of the larger culture around us, we are supposed to present the truth of God to the culture so they hopefully will believe and begin learning about what God says is true of the world. The church is supposed to operate within a different worldview than the world. That does not mean we isolate ourselves from that culture, but we filter everything the culture says through the word of God. Nowhere in the Bible do we see it being acceptable to change the message because of a culture. In each case we see God’s messenger, like Paul in Athens, telling the people to repent (which means to change one’s mind) and turn away from their previous beliefs and practices to begin following God. The recipients of the message are being called to change their minds, in no instance do we hear about the message being changed when it met a new culture.

I know that you had some other points, such as the Bible being an extension of Jesus. I am not sure what the implication of that is for you. If you said, either I didn’t understand or I didn’t read carefully enough. Will you explain further; for my part I will re-read your comments and get back to you later.

Because of Christ,
Steve