On having the right answers...

The journey through Greg Boyd's book Cross Vision has touched on nearly every major tenet of Christian faith and theology - scripture, holiness, free will, sovereignty, trinity, relationship, evil, and love. (And we're only halfway through!) Because it has disrupted some of my own thoughts on theology, I went looking for some writings on theological study, the pursuit of doctrine, and the need for having the "right" set of beliefs. One of the things I, personally, have taken comfort in is the fact that so many Old Testament characters are referenced in the New Testament as people of faith and are clearly included in God's community, despite having so very many things wrong. Meaning, I, too, can get things wrong and still be within the grace of God. This is so simple...and, yet, many of us have a great deal of concern about getting it wrong. I started wondering about the history of that concern. Why are we so fearful? And how can we respond to that fear?

So, if you'll bear with me, I'll take you on the journey of what I've found today.

Somewhat surprisingly (or maybe not), there is a great deal of support for some of Boyd's positions in this insightful and informative article by David W. Congdon and W. Travis McMaken in Christianity Today: Ten Reasons Why Theology Matters:

Appeals to this or that text have been used over the years to justify any number of ethical positions, from slavery and apartheid to the subjugation of women and anti-Semitic pogroms. Furthermore, all the so-called “heretics” in Christian history knew their Bible very well and could find ample support for their positions within its pages. 

In order to address this problem, the church from the outset developed two rules of interpretation: the “rule of faith” and the “rule of love.” The rule of love stipulates that one must read Scripture in a way that promotes the love of God and neighbor, and the rule of faith offers the church’s shared theological affirmations as a similar guide for reading. Jesus Christ stands behind each of these rules...

In other words, scripture is somewhat difficult to interpret and can be used in support of all manner of evil and heresy. Therefore, we need a standard for interpreting scripture, and that standard is Jesus. (Sound familiar?) Furthermore, in reference to the fervent defense of traditional doctrine, the authors state:

If the Word of God is indeed “living and active” (Heb. 4:12), then a militant defense of the past can result in the silencing of God in the present. Those who follow such a living God must also be on the move, bearing dynamic witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ in our own place and time.

Wow. I really want to sit with that scripture for a while because I believe it has some of the key to unlocking the question of how we understand scripture and what scripture really is. I won't pretend to offer answers, but I do think Hebrews 4:12 is worth sitting with for a while.

Finally, I found the following statement uplifting and refreshing in the midst of the complexity of this study:

The journey of Christian discipleship is a matter of learning why we believe, and thinking hard and carefully about this belief, not so that we can bludgeon others with our knowledge but so that we can bear faithful witness to God in the totality of our life.

Theology is less about the what and much more about the how. We are called as Christians not to sign up to a certain doctrinal statement but to follow a certain way of life.

Please, go read the whole article! I appreciated every word of it!

Next, I read A Dangerous Trend in the Churches of Christ by Jack Wilkie at Focus Press directly addressing the issue of "rightness" in Christianity. In this article Wilkie quotes Tom Keller saying,

Idolatry functions widely inside religious communities when doctrinal truth is elevated to the position of a false god. This occurs when people rely on the rightness of their doctrine for their standing with God rather than on God himself and his grace.

Wilkie points out that focusing on rightness and the finer points of doctrine, "de-emphasizes Jesus" and leads to either pride or fear or both. Wilkie says that, "When our sermons, classes, and articles constantly emphasize our role in salvation, the things that make us different, and what others have wrong," we become prideful and we lose sight of Jesus.

On the other hand, there are those who are trained in the “rightness” doctrine who constantly question their standing. They realize that if they’re relying on their rightness, they had better not have a blind spot or a misunderstanding when they die. ...

The Bible tells us very clearly that those who seek will find (Matthew 7:7-8) and that we can know that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). That inability to feel confident that’s caused by an over-emphasis on rightness isn’t how God wants us to live. What does that say to outsiders about His love and grace if even the most faithful Christians can’t be sure?

It has already come up in our group discussions a few times that there's something about this opening up of doctrine that makes us take a look at the way we judge other others, and Wilkie addresses the ways in which "rightness" doctrine leads to condescension and unfriendliness. He closes his article with words that sound very much like the refrain we've been hearing from Boyd,

It’s time we turn the spotlight away from where we’re right and others are wrong, and put it back on the cross.

Although the focus is different, the conclusion is the same. We need to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus...both to understand God rightly and to love our neighbors, as Jesus taught.

We've also mentioned a few times now, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, as a framework for studying theology, which affirms 4 components of Christian theology: (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For those of us who grew up in a "sola scriptura" tradition, this shifts our perspective a bit. It is helpful for me, at least, to know that sola scriptura is only one among many traditions.

It can also be helpful to know that the sola scriptura tradition may be the one that is giving us some sticking points as we work our way through Boyd's book. (I don't mean for that to have either positive or negative connotations...just that this may inform where we agree, disagree or change as we read through Boyd's book.) Gotquestions.org has a reasonable description of sola scriptura:

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. 

In other words, sola scriptura is what set the protestants apart from the catholics. This may explain why so many of us come from traditions that are reluctant to allow for "interpretation" of scripture through the lens of culture. Sola scriptura was a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction of "tradition only" held by the Catholic church of the time. It makes sense, then, that we've all heard the position of sola scriptura:

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

 Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible.

I don't have any commentary on this, except to say that I think this is close to the tradition most of us grew up with, and it might help us to articulate some thoughts on scripture and how our thoughts on scripture may inform our reading and/or change over the course of reading.

I apologize if this post doesn't flow nicely. I wanted to offer some thoughts and resources...maybe send some of you down some other rabbit trails to inform the study. Thank you ALL for all your thoughtful discussion and commitment to digging deeper!