Theological Musings

n discussion following my recent post on sola scriptura, Earl pointed out that, for all of my complaints about the use of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I operate on a confession of sorts myself. He submitted as Exhibit A my very first post on this blog entitled “Getting Started“. In that initial post, I wrote the following:

These are the things I believe are absolutely essential for one to call themselves a Christian, and for me to recognize them as my brother or sister in the Lord:

1. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh
2. Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, was buried, and literally rose from the dead to live forever.
3. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, and there is salvation in no other person, doctrine, or belief.
4. Each individual’s eternal destiny will be determined by their relationship (or lack, thereof) to Jesus Christ.

Earl pointed out that this is, in itself, a confession and compared it to the WCF in the following way:

The difference with your confession versus the WCF is that it is shorter, it is informal (not put into a standard form), you wrote it – and of course you think your confession is Biblical where in your opinion the WCF isn’t Biblical.

Earl has a fairly decent point about this being my “confession”, but I think in some ways, the differences are more essential than seems implied by the above comment. Allow me to elaborate on each of the points that Earl has made. I’m going to take them out of order because I want to spend the bulk of my time on one in particular.

My list is informal. This is partly due to the nature of blogging, but also actually comes from my belief that each person should be able to informally articulate their beliefs without just pointing to a confession written by someone else. Consider the fact that Jesus commissioned us to make disciples, not clones! Which leads to the next point…

I wrote it. Some time ago, I wrote on my frustrating experience at being shot down in my ordination council for attempting to write my own statement of faith. I was “encouraged” to simply use the words that others have written in the past. This illustrates the common perception that Christians should not really think too much for themselves, but should simply lean on what has already been done and said. While I don’t eschew the past, or those who have gone before me, this mindset does damage to the priesthood of believers by actually encouraging a lack of thinking.

I think my confession is biblical. Well, I should hope so! But seriously, there seems to be a major point to be made here. Each of my statements are informal representations of things that are specifically stated either by Jesus (statements 3 and 4) or about Jesus (statements 1 and 2) in Scripture itself. These are not statements that are “deduced” from putting various unrelated verses together, redefining a few key words within those verses, and then creating a propositional statement and stating that as truth. And this is one area where I feel the difference between what I wrote related to myself and what the WCF authors wrote is quite large.

My list is shorter (than the WCF). As a matter of fact, my list is shorter than most statements of faith I have come across in my lifetime. And this is the point that I want to focus most specifically on. Why is my list so short? And what are the implications for that list being short?

Earl has drawn some conclusions about the involvement of each of us in the other’s fellowship. In Earl’s opinion, neither one of us would be suitable for leadership in the other’s church. He has acknowledged that I would not be permitted to be a leader in his Presbyterian church. In his own words, “It is true that if you wanted to become an elder in our church, at this stage of your stated beliefs, that wouldn’t happen.” (I would like to know the biblical basis for this conclusion, but I’ll leave that up to Earl to offer at his discretion. It is not necessary at this point.)

However, he then goes on to explain why he thinks he would also be unsuitable for leadership in a simple church here in Boone.

I think it is very unscriptural to not have local bodies so unaccountable to the larger body of Christ. I would strongly encourage your church to move in that direction. I would see that your church is missing out on the wonderful doctrines of grace (as I see how it is taught in the Bible), I would teach those. Just as you would be a square wheel in being a leader at my church, so I would be a triangle wheel at your church. I would cause division and strife. You and I would tear at the peace of our respective churches while trying to put into practice pure doctrine.

This is why I think a short list is so valuable. And this is why I think it is completely necessary to understand the implications of adding to that list. The Westminster Confession of Faith itself acknowledges that some matters of church government do not even come from Scripture. And yet, I believe this is part of what is included in the things Earl says he would “strongly encourage” the church here in Boone to move toward.

Earl also believes that we are “missing out” on something by not subscribing to Calvinism. (Lest anyone here not understand how I got this, you need to understand that “doctrines of grace” is used as a synonym for the five points of Calvinism.) And so, he would feel compelled to teach these. Earl believes that in doing so, he (by his own words) would cause division and strife.

This is a very important point to understand. And I’m grateful that Earl has made the point for me without me having to assume anything here. The major reason I believe that we need to keep our list short is because this is a good step towards preserving the unity of the Body of Christ. By adding to the list things that are legitimately up to interpretation (such as Calvinism, cessationism, eschatology), and by imposing systems on to our practice that are not based on Scripture alone, we end up causing division and strife in the Body.

Take a look at the numerous denominations and divisions in the Body of Christ over the centuries, and tell me that this is what Jesus pictured in John 17 when He prayed that we would be one with each other and with Him. Yet what is the source of most of the denominations that have come into existence? Divisions over non-essential things!

It’s not enough for people in one denomination to say, “We believe baptism should be done in this way.” Instead, they feel like they have to say, “We believe baptism should be done in this way, and any other way is not acceptable to us.” So we divide over sprinkling vs. immersion. Or infant baptism vs. believer baptism. But by not putting that on my list, even though I personally am of the opinion that believer baptism is what is best, I have no problem being in a fellowship with someone who believes in infant baptism. I wouldn’t even have a problem with that person being an elder in our fellowship. Unless they started teaching that infant baptism is the only correct interpretation.

And see, the words I highlighted in bold in the previous paragraph are very important. It is my opinion that a particular interpretation is correct, but I must, must, must be humble enough to recognize that it is still an opinion. I don’t mean this directly at Earl, but a very good and pertinent example is Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism. The Calvinist must be able to recognize that their systematic theology is still based on interpretation and should be subject to re-evaluation and difference of opinion. I grow very weary (again, this is not directed specifically at Earl) of Calvinists referring to their theology as “biblical theology”, stating that elements of that theology are “clearly” taught in Scripture, even when it is pointed out that words are being redefined, verses are being taken out of context, etc.

But Calvinism isn’t the only system that does this. When I spent some time in a Oneness Pentecostal church, I witnessed quite a few verbal assaults on Trinitarian beliefs without any humility or caution. Likewise, I have gotten into discussions on blogs where (and this happens a lot), people will claim that Trinitarianism is absolutely essential for salvation and therefore for fellowship. Trinitarianism, while I believe it probably comes closest to how I interpret Scripture, is in and of itself an interpretation that should not be held so highly as to slander other interpretations as being “heretical”.

Regardless of whether one holds to “sola scriptura” as a literal statement of “Scripture alone, and only Scripture”, or whether they hold to “sola scriptura” in the sense of “Scripture is the only inspired communication from God, and therefore trumps everything else, but I still can use other documents for evidence”, let’s at least start with what Scripture actually says and draw our boundaries there! If you’ve got to derive some understanding from various passages being cut and pasted together in a very loose fashion, redefine some words, throw in some logical progressions, and then spit out a statement that you believe best represents God’s view on something, be willing to acknowledge the process that got you there, and recognize that some misunderstanding along the chain of progression might have skewed your final result.

Having said all that, you are most welcome in our fellowship, Earl. And if God put you in a place in our fellowship where you were recognized as an elder, I would not be drawing a line and saying that you couldn’t be an elder because of your beliefs in these areas. Expect those beliefs to be challenged, and expect to be asked to defend them biblically (not from the WCF), but also expect hearts to be open to what you had to say. I can only pretty much speak for myself, but in doing so, I would say that the only division and strife that would result would have to be by your own volition, and not from mine.

Until next time,

steve

just wanted to point out a couple of things that will benefit you as readers and commenters on this new format for the blog.

1. Recent Comments - You may already have noticed this, but the last few comments on the blog (regardless of post) now show up on the right-hand side. This is a great way to see quickly on your return to the blog if there has been any future discussion. If you hover your mouse over the comment in that “Recent Comments” section, you’ll see the title and date of the post on which the comment was left. The comment itself is also a link directly to that comment so you can read the full comment if it was truncated in the sidebar.
2. Feed Subscriptions - If you have not already changed the feed in your Bloglines or other reader, make sure you have done so. The new feed links are available in the sidebar in the “Meta” section. There is a feed for posts as well as a feed for comments. Additionally, at the bottom of each article (if you are actually on the page where you can comment), there is a link to subscribe to the comments feed for that individual post, if you just want to follow one particular thread.
3. Comment HTML - Comments are allowed to use markup for style, adding links, etc. Most of you probably already know how to do this, but for those who don’t, there is a little bit of help for you. Right above the comment box should be a collection of buttons saying things like “Close Tags”, “Dict”, “B-Quote”, etc. (If you don’t see a collection of buttons, but rather see just one button with “>>” on it, click that button to show the others.) The way these buttons work is that they insert the appropriate tags for you. For example, if you want to make something bold, that is the button marked “Strong”. When you want to type a word in bold, first click the “strong” button. It will add “strong” to your comment (in brackets). Type the word you want bolded, and then click the “Strong” button again (you will notice that after you click it the first time, it changes to say “/Strong”. When you click it the second time, it will insert “/strong” into your comment (again in < and > brackets. That “closes” the strong tag (or, in plain English, tells the system that you are done using bold text).
4. Comment “Live” Preview - As you type your comment (including any of the tags you add yourself or get from the formatting buttons), you can see an instantaneous live preview of your comment appearing below the comment box (you may need to scroll down to see it). Update 9-20-06: I have changed plugins to give you an actual preview within the context of the site itself. This is available by clicking the “Preview” button below the comment box. The original preview I installed did not handle things like the automatic linking of Scripture references, the conversion of emoticons to smilies, etc. This will help you preview how your comment will look to the rest of us.
5. Site Registration - I am not requiring commenters to register with the system, but if you plan on commenting frequently from the same computer and would like to save the hassle of typing your name, email, and website everytime, you can create an account on my blog. This is located in the “Meta” section of the sidebar, as well, and is the link called “Register”. You create an account, and can choose when you log in to have the blog remember you next time. Then, on future visits you’ll be all set to just start typing your comment without having to enter your information each time.

ecently, I got into two completely unrelated discussions on two completely unrelated blogs about two completely unrelated topics. One was a discussion on Rose’s Reasonings about homosexuality. The other was a blog I had never visited (Lenscleanse), yet found via a link on Matt Gumm’s blog, and the topic was how small groups should not be permitted to take communion.

What was so interesting was that in both cases, those with whom I was discussing the relevant topics (in Rose’s case, a commenter named Earl) were both very gracious, yet both gave very similar information in their answers. That information was that they base much of their theology on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Or, perhaps a more fair way to express it would be to say that they believe the WCF is an accurate representation of their theology.

As many of my regular readers can imagine, I had a bit of difficulty hearing this because I think that this represents a problem within a lot of Christianity. I have read the WCF, and I find it problematic in several areas. In many ways, it goes beyond Scripture and forms propositions that Scripture itself does not clearly teach.

For example, Chapter XXVII states in part:

There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

Now, I do not take issue with the idea that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. That is clearly biblical. However, the closing phrase presents a major problem. Where does Scripture teach us that only “lawfully ordained” ministers can “dispense” these? At the conclusion of the Lenscleanse article linked above, “RevGoT” (the name that author uses) writes the following:

Barna’s recent book Revolution seeks to applaud the entrepreneurial vein of pomo Christianity. He bids good riddance to the church and institutional authority in favour of sacramental understandings of Starbucks and any gathering between two Christians. This means that we need to redouble our efforts and retreat to the Scriptures to “sell” this notion of communion with Christ with his body in covenantal worship not just Christian fellowship.

In response, I wrote in my comment: “So, if you ‘retreat to the Scriptures’, what do you find?” Part of RevGoT’s response to me was:

On hermeneutical method, you mentioned that you look at those passages where the Lord’s Supper is discussed and see no mention of discipline there. This method fails to make the biblical theological connections from all of Scripture. This method is described in Westminster Confession Chapter 1

To be accurate, I had mentioned that I didn’t see discipline or authority (this idea that only certain people can distribute the elements of communion, or baptize believers). But at any rate, here are three paragraphs from Chapter I of the WCF, which appear to speak to what RevGoT was trying to say:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge…that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

I’ve highlighted one particular segment in bold, because it strikes at the heart of something that I find troublesome. One of the “solas” dearly held by the Reformed tradition is that of Sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone”. And this belief is what is spelled out in the portion immediately preceding the bold section above. Specifically, it is the belief that there is no revelation of God necessary outside of Scripture, and that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule for living.

Yet, in the section I have highlighted, we find that certain areas of worship and church government are held by the writers of the WCF to be outside of Scripture! And it is this very issue that came up on Lenscleanse. The author was maintaining that it is inappropriate for a group of believers who are not organized in a “covenental relationship” (a loaded term, to be sure!) to celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. And in supporting this statement, he said that we needed to “retreat to the Scriptures” to support it. However, I maintain that this concept cannot be supported by Scripture, and is, in fact, a tradition imposed on Scripture by the Reformed tradition.
In imposing these manmade traditions onto Scripture, the whole notion of sola scriptura becomes a myth. It becomes a noble-sounding slogan which is devoid of meaning once the curtain is pulled back. RevGoT made the following statements in an attempt to show that this position was biblical:

Since sacraments are signs and seals given to his covenant people, it means that the original word (words of institution and biblical substantiation) needs to be spoken by one of his pastor-teachers that we never think the sign is ours, or that power is automatically conferred by the mere act. God owns his people and owns the sign and uses his ordained officers to deliver his gifts to his people (Eph. 4).

So, according to his interpretation of Eph 4, the “gifts” that God gave the church are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and because Eph 4 mentions certain “officers”, these are the only ones who can administer them. I maintain that this is a distortion of Eph 4, wherein the gifts mentioned are the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers themselves.

I am open to correction on this, as many of my regular readers know, but I would like someone to show me from Scripture a defense of the following:

• Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are only allowed to be “dispensed” by a “lawfully ordained minister”
• The “offices” mentioned in Eph 4 refer to “lawfully ordained” positions
• Groups of believers gathered together for fellowship are prohibited from participating in the very signs of our oneness in Christ (i.e., the Lord’s Supper)

In closing, allow me to quote from Paragraph X of Chapter I of the WCF, as it seems to indicate a standard for itself that those who adhere to it fail to consider:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

By that standard, I think it’s time that Reformed believers actually articulate their beliefs by accurate hermeneutical interpretation of Scripture, rather than just punting to a derivative work and using that as the foundation of their arguments. As I told Earl in my discussion with him on Rose’s blog, I’m not interested in comparing what he says with the WCF. I’m interested in comparing what he (or anyone) says with Scripture itself.

Until next time,

steve

irst of all, I must apologize for the length of time without posting. Where has the time gone?! I’ve been super busy with the stage company (my summer gig as Music Director) and getting my act together for the start of the fall semester at the University, as well as beginning our first year of homeschooling, and the time has just kept slipping by! But in the short time I have available this morning, I want to try to put down my thoughts on a topic that has increasingly disturbed me. That is the general topic of going too far in our beliefs, our applications, our interpretations of Scripture, etc.

To start with the typical disclaimer (i.e., this is not what I’m talking about in the upcoming paragraphs!), I recognize that application sometimes means deriving principles from Scripture and applying them to other situations. This can be completely valid, and when done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, allows us to read Scripture as much more than just a collection of stories, sayings, and sentiments. However, it is vitally important that we recognize the danger in application. That danger is the ease of crossing the line into turning a principle into a law, or turning a story into a propositional command.

For example, if I were to share the story of Nehemiah with you, and talk about how vitally important it is for a leader to continually re-cast a vision every twenty-six days, would you find that absurd? Yet, this is one of the foundational principles in Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church. He calls it the “Nehemiah Principle”. Half-way through the 52-day task of rebuilding the walls, Nehemiah had to remind the people of what they were trying to accomplish. And so, Warren turns this into a “principle” that leaders need to remind people of the vision every twenty-six days. This is taking things too far.

A valid observation from Nehemiah might be that leaders need to be aware of when their group is losing focus and remind them of the vision. Or, a valid application might be that leaders should never assume that the people with whom they work continue to follow the same vision. But to turn it into a principle based on the number of days smacks of “proof-texting”. Perhaps some groups can retain their focus better than thousands of people who had been in captivity for most of their lives!

Another example was a recent comment on my post about Tim LaHaye’s public comments. The comment simply said, “Dont [sic] forget the godless told Noah to sit down and shut up as well. Your words are unwise.” I’ve already replied to that comment, but I think it bears repeating here. As far as I can tell from Scripture, we have absolutely no record of what interaction (if any) Noah had with “the godless” prior to the flood. It’s a common telling of the story that includes people mocking Noah, ridiculing him for building a big boat so far away from water, etc. But it’s not biblical. We can add dramatic elements to the story all we want, but we have no right to then draw application from the very things we added to the text. The extent of the revelation about Noah’s time is that people were just going on with their daily lives right up until the flood came. And we know that God did not find any righteous among those who lost their lives in the flood. That’s it! We must approach Scripture with the humility to say that God has not chosen to reveal anything else about that.

Yet another example is when we just pull things out of thin air (or from non-biblical analogies altogether) and then turn them into principles and teach them. For example, my wife is currently reviewing a book that is generally meant to be an instruction manual on how to be a Proverbs 31 woman. I won’t give too many specifics here because she has yet to write and submit her review, and I don’t want to appear to be trumping that. But there was one particular part she read to me that illustrates my point very well.

The author referenced another author’s use of the metaphor of an embassy for the Christian’s home. The basic idea was that when an ambassador lives in a foreign country, the embassy where that ambassador works is located in the foreign country, but is filled with sights and sounds and customs of the home country. The author went on to use this analogy to say that we should view our homes as “embassies” reflecting our true home with God. And the application of that? Everything should be kept neat, clean, orderly, and beautiful. The author went on to stipulate that this is also part of being a “good steward” of the homes God has given us.

My response to this was not a positive one at all. Why? Because the analogy itself does not even work biblically. First of all, we, not our homes, are the temple of the Holy Spirit. In fact, God does not dwell in man-made buildings (Acts 7:48) at all. So while I’m sure we can come up with other reasons why it would be helpful and beneficial to keep our homes clean, it is very inappropriate to imply that this is a requirement of properly representing God! I would like to speak even more strongly against this sly legalism, but I will refrain.

(As an ironic side note, I once saw an ad in a Christian magazine for a firm that builds church buildings. They used as part of their ad the single phrase from Acts 7:49, “What kind of house will you build for me?” If you look at that statement in context (and Isaiah 66:1 to which Stephen refers in his statements in Acts 7), you will see that God is making it clear that it is impossible for us to build any kind of dwelling for Him since He created everything. Appropriately applying this passage would more than likely put that company out of business, not be an effective marketing slogan for them!)

Let me share one final illustration of something that popped up recently in the blogosphere that turned my stomach in this regard. I don’t regularly read Purgatorio, although it is frequently a humorous and fun diversion from heavy blog reading. However, recently, I was directed there by a link somewhere else to see an entry about a “Cowboy Church” here in North Carolina. Now, to be fair, I will point out that Marc, the host of Purgatorio, was not commenting one way or the other. So it is not Marc, with whom I take the biggest issue (although when pressed in the comment thread, it doesn’t appear that Marc really wanted to discredit some of the vicious comments). It is some of the comments that were made with which I take issue. Here is a sampling:

WHY, WHY, WHY do we feel the need to custom-tailor everything in churches to some kind of “lifestyle”? Churches are like Barbie dolls… there’s Cowboy/Girl, Biker, Rocker… why do we care about personal affinities that matter nothing to a holy God? God never commanded us to make our services into experiences that people can “relate to”. There is only one thing needful, and that is the preaching of the unvarnished Gospel. NO ONE is able to “relate to” that without the sovereign work of God in their hearts. These kinds of things make me sick. “Wow… cool… as long as they remember to put in a Bible message, then they can play cowboy dress-up all they want.”

While we’re at it, let’s have “The Church of Christ for MENSA members”, or how about, “The Holy Church of Christ for Computer Geeks”, and “The Gardener’s Fellowship of the Lord”. Was the apostle Paul not concerned about factions and sects arising within the body of Christ? What if some God fearing computer geeks showed up at the cowboy church wanting to worship God? Would this cause division or unity? Should the common denominator be “cowboys”, or “Christ”? Isn’t this the difference between God-centered and man-centered worship?

The Lord’s Day is not an option as far as I see it in the scriptures! I work as a Care Aide and am forced to work some Sundays to take care of the mentally challenged, but my heart pines to be with the people of God in church. I would council a new convert who was not employed in a work of mercy (police man, fireman, nurse etc) to seek to stop working on Sundays and be in church. It is sin to engage in work that will draw others away from church on Sundays (ie: Rodeos). I thought cowboys took a stand on principle…even if it cost them money.

I would be more comfortable if they would call it cowboy “chapel” or cowboy something else rather than cowboy “church.” Church seems to imply that it is its own separate entity off to the side of the local church.

Ehh, just another way for a church to draw people to them while they can sit on their hands and wait to preach the gospel to them when they come in the door. I thank the Lord that He saves souls that way! But if men were truly devoted, they would be going to the cowboys’ farm on every other day of the week and presenting the Gospel to them, and wouldn’t have to worry about making a church to suit their needs.

You get the idea. And the basic theme from all of the negative commenters is that this can’t possibly be pleasing to God because it’s so…so…not what we do! And since what we do must be what pleases God, well then these cowboys just need to come do our thing. And for many of them, that’s the biblical position. As one commenter noted above, because this Cowboy Church meets on Tuesday nights, it’s unbiblical right off the bat because it’s not “The Lord’s Day”. And some are speaking about division. Ummm, how many of those people are part of a denominational church?!

So basically, the bottom line I’m trying to convey here is that it is quite necessary for us to search the Scriptures and find what God has revealed. And it is quite necessary for us to walk in the Spirit and be led by the Spirit. But let’s not take that to a point where we begin to pile legalism on others based on something that’s not even there.

Until next time,

steve