Occasio

They Will Know Us By Our Theological Arrogance

I've been saying it for years. Those in the evangelical tradition who are perceived to be either liberal or conservative are not that different from one another.

Rob Bell writes a book called Love Wins, describing a God of great patience and grace that would not willingly condemn people to hell, and Francis Chan responds with Erasing Hell, accusing Bell of being a Universalist and reminding readers that all of us deserve eternal punishment.

Brian McLaren continues to call for interfaith dialogue on his quest for an Emergent church, and Al Mohler cries Protestant Liberalism and charges the movement with Bultmannian-like "demythologizing" of scripture.

John Piper champions the fight for a penal substitutionary understanding of the gospel, and Tony Jones questions Piper's biblical literalism as he excommunicates his 19-year-old non-Christian son while holding onto his vast ministry empire.

The theological skirmishes and personal attacks go back-and-forth in an endless cycle. Many more stories could be told. Following the ongoing infighting of prominent Christian pastors and authors takes a pretty complicated score card. I've lost count. In the end, I'm not sure anyone comes out on top. But maybe that's the problem. Whether conservative or liberal, maybe this is simply a fight for control, power and orthodoxy, none of which are values of the kingdom.

Much of this bickering is pure sensationalism—the stuff that sells. John MacArthur's recent "Strange Fire" conference denounced Charismatics and promoted his new book (his previous book described the “hidden truth” of identity in Christ). Brian McLaren continues to proclaim a brand "new Christianity" or a "secret message of Jesus" that has never been heard before. Andy Stanley tries to convince the church that it's really a business and he has the steps to success.

But it's not enough that conservatives and liberals are battling it out. Now the conservatives are clobbering each other. Just this last weekend reformed pastor and cultural critic Mark Driscoll crashed MacArthur's conference. As a "continuationist" (believing that the Holy Spirit continues to work through miraculous gifts, but still having a very conservative theology), he went to give away his newest book at the doorstep of the "cessationist" crusade (a movement believing that miraculous gifts ceased with the New Testament church). The ensuing fight included accusations, name calling and general reprehensible behavior that descended into lies and subterfuge.

I've had it. I'm basically through with their books, their conferences and their trinkets. But what are the options? What could a believer do?

I have several points of advice:

1. Believers who want a serious study of their faith need to read broadly and need to read beyond popular books often marketed through sensationalism. The most popular book is not necessarily the best. I can't emphasize this enough. To read only from one set of authors only works to reinforce what one already believes. Find books and articles that you don't agree with or haven't been exposed to and then be open to what can be learned. I was listening to an emeritus professor today, a brilliant philosopher and historian (some of you may remember Dr. Delbert Wiens from FPU), and I was stunned with his intellectual humility. In discussing the interpretation of a controversial section of scripture he noted, "I had to be willing to learn what I didn’t want to learn." That right there is the antidote to theological arrogance.
2. Learn about traditions outside of your own. There are many ways to reflect on the history of the church, but every survey will reveal different periods, styles and practices of Christian faith. Richard Foster does an excellent job of identifying six historical traditions in his book Streams of Living Water. He discusses the contemplative, holiness, charismatic, social justice, evangelical and incarnational models/influences of spirituality. Exposure to other traditions will lead to gracious embrace of those who are different.
3. Talk to Christians from other cultures. Foster's book is good, but it lacks cultural perspective because it doesn't have much to say about non-western views. Cultural awareness is critical. Western theological arrogance has resulted in imperialism and colonization. In the new global village roles are now being reversed. Believers in Africa, Asia and South America have much to teach American Christians about the faith and we should be listening.
4. Don't discuss theology without doing ministry. This is really a "bottom line" for me. Theory is devoid of meaning without practice. Theology will always inform practice but theology will also evolve as a result of what is learned through practice. Working in an urban context will change one's reading of scripture. Befriending a homeless person, mentoring an addict or walking with someone through divorce always influences interpretation. In a sense, the absolute worst place to study the Bible might be the sterile confines of four church walls on Sunday morning. Context matters.

As I contemplate the recent and relentless arguing and posturing between Christian leaders, I'm reminded of how much respect I have for Shane Claiborne. Shane remains above the fray because he commits himself primarily to incarnational ministry. He is doing theology on the run as he practices what he believes. Will he get some theology wrong? Sure, he'd be the first to admit that.

But, more importantly, he isn't afraid to act and to live out a life of discipleship as he understands it, while dwelling in community with other believers in urban Philadelphia. His goal isn't to publish more books, fill up his speaking calendar or grow his church. He’s not interested in grabbing headlines. He simply wants to serve the poor in the name of Jesus. Though he's capable enough, I don't think we'll see Shane turn into a rock star or a mega church celebrity any time soon. And that's a posture that's truly different than the current status quo.

Grace to You? John MacArthur declares war on Charismatics

Right now, at this very minute, John MacArthur is leading an all-out assault, a full-scale war on the Charismatic branch of the Christian faith. MacArthur is a longtime cessationist--a theological movement that believes gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances and faith healing ceased in the early church of the first century. He and a stage full of white-haired old men are working in concert to completely demolish the practices of half a billion people who belong to some form of Pentecostal or Charismatic churches across the globe. His "Strange Fire" conference, a convenient opportunity to promote his new book of the same title, is taking place October 16-20.

Mainly highlighting a few iconic televangelists and some extreme practices, MacArthur says he's not interested in being divisive, but wants to identify the "true church" as opposed to the "false church." As an ancillary to the conversation, he is also trouncing "young people" who are attracted to the "social gospel" and Roman Catholics, assuring an audience of 4000 at his church in Southern California that these people, along with Charismatics, are following false teachers and are not brothers and sisters in Christ.

One of his guests said that only mentally unbalanced people would be attracted to such a movement.

The conversation quickly turned to the music that many contemporary churches use, apparently in order to brainwash their youth and young adults with noisy, repetitive, mindless melodies and lyrics. MacArthur quickly affirmed that only orderly, historic music of the church is appropriate for worship. After showing a prerecording of a worship team asking to be "filled up," MacArthur warned parents of this highly "sensual" music that could lead to "demon possession" through "paganism." "There is nothing good in it," declares MacArthur. "Don't let your children listen to Hillsong." (Wild applause by the audience.)

"Even Evangelical, non-Charismatic churches, are using music to suck people in." "The theology is unbiblical." (But the organ is biblical. Really. He just proved that--because it was once a wind instrument and wind instruments are mentioned in the Bible. I'm not making that up.)

I'm not a Pentecostal or Charismatic, and I don't completely understand the practices of these movements all the time, and I know they have had errant and scandalous leaders just like in my and all traditions, but I have many Christian friends who are, and they are passionate, redeemed, Jesus-followers. It deeply saddens me that MacArthur and his loyal band of hyper-Calvinists so quickly and readily not only dismiss those they disagree with, but outright accuse them of leading others away from Christ. The worst accusation: Charismatics are not led by the Holy Spirit, but are in fact possessed by Satan.

I used to listen to MacArthur and I've learned a lot from him in my childhood. But this is too far. MacArthur is divisive, demeaning and dismissive. What arrogance. What insensitivity. What abuse of leadership power. His narrowly filtered reading of Scripture has Jesus looking exactly like himself.

This is the last dying cry of a man desperate to save his beloved Christian subculture. It's what all power-driven people do when they see their systems crumble. It's motivated by a fear that "young people" (a term he keeps referencing) are not interested in his brand of narrow Christianity.

I can't imagine how he has the audacity to call his ministry "Grace to You." I'm not sure who's more mean--Al Mohler or John MacArthur.

Here are a couple of articles to help provide greater context:

From The Christian Post: 'Strange Fire' Conference: John MacArthur Calls Out Charismatic Movement as 'Unfaithful'

From Charisma News: A Final Appeal to Pastor John MacArthur on the Eve of His 'Strange Fire' Conference

Quotes from MacArthur's conference:

"What I'm talking about is the charismatic movement that offers to God unacceptable worship, distorted worship. It blasphemes the Holy Spirit. It attributes to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan. People are caught up in it, deceived, led astray."

"The charismatic movement continually dishonors God in its false forms of worship. It dishonors the Father and Son, but most specifically, the Holy Spirit. Many things are attributed to the Holy Spirit that actually dishonor him. In many places in the charismatic movement they are attributing to the Holy Spirit works that have actually been generated by Satan."

"When people see full churches in Africa, they think of revival. But it's not good news. It's bad. . . . The Word of God is no longer playing the role of governing our thinking or our practice. . . . The phrase 'going to Bible study' is almost completely absent. . . . The churches in Africa are full of goats in sheepskins."

"The charismatic movement offers nothing to true worship because it has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine."

 

 

 

A fundemental problem of the gay "conversation"

Leadership Journal published an article yesterday titled "Help, I'm Gay." The author, Dr. Stanton Jones, is the Provost of Wheaton College, has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and has written numerous books on human sexuality. This makes him an expert. Maybe.

Read his article here.

Without taking on the actual issue of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality (and thus opening myself to criticism from all camps on this one), I'd rather comment on the nature of the article. It's such a disappointment.

I was really looking forward to reading the article, especially because it was framed as a conversation. But while the general format is that of a dialogue between Jones and a counselee, it's really nothing more than a rather forced forum for the author to present a clear, predefined agenda. And though he suggests that there is much uncertainty and complexity around the issue of homosexuality, often encouraging the hypothetical counselee to ask questions, it still comes off as an apologetic.

Tragically, the author is almost completely dismissive of other theological, biblical and scientific perspectives, again thwarting any true dialogue by deferring to his own expertise.

I work with college students daily, as I know Provost Jones does, and I know that this kind of conversation wouldn't satisfy most of my students. I find again and again that the discussion 50 to 60-year-old white churchmen are having is not the same as that of the teens I work with. Well-meaning people like Jones are giving really good answers to a wonderful set of questions that are simply not being asked by the coming generation.

Students are not looking for a debate. They don't want to choose one side or the other (i.e. homosexuality is wrong or it isn't). What's needed is intellectual humility and theological generosity. If spiritual formation is to happen in adolescents' lives they need to have safe places for critical thinking, which includes the opportunity to ask complex and important questions, rather than to have a predetermined set of answers dropped on them.

I recently made a suggestion to a speaker, known for his Christian response to homosexuality, that we create this kind of space for interaction and dialogue. He responded by saying he could anticipate 90% of the questions that would be asked so it would be better to give a lecture and then have a brief time of Q&A.

Hmm. I can imagine a more fruitful and generative space for such a topic. The asking of the question--not the answering--is where spiritual formation happens best.

(Please feel free to comment from any perspective or orientation, but try to discuss the discussion itself as opposed to the issue of rightness/wrongness of homosexuality. How do you think the conversation could be improved?)