The Language of Theology

It says "The seminary and the table", and I have permission from the student, by the way to share this with you, so I thank that person whose gender will remain nameless. "The seminary and the table have really opened my eyes as far as the diversity of ideas across evangelicalism that I had never thought of before and that I think I've censored. My ideas and my upbringing protected me from thinking about these for myself. I've seen that there seems to be a rich plurality of ideas within the bounds of orthodoxy that I think my denomination would quickly deem heretical, which can mean anything from aposthesy to that idea or question makes me uncomfortable.

Many seem to be comfortable with labeling these ideas as orthodox and anything against it as punishable by burning at the stake. I also think it's important to point out the false teaching in what others have said, and protect the flock by removing their books from shelves or simply urging the weaker brothers among us to stay far away from any of their books or sermons because they're clearly anti-Christ, here to scrape away some of the elect, and accompany them in their journey back into the pit of hell." Part of the reason I like this email is because it was so subtle in how it went about raising the question.

"Hopefully I've made it clear that I'm a little confused and torn. Knowing all of this, is there a way or a starting point when we step into service or a conference or a class or a book to know what ideas to filter into our faith and what to try and keep an arm's length from? It seems to me that since everyone is fallible, it's probably not a good idea to filter something by teacher since I've heard some secular songs allude to some things I would consider true. Is there a podcast" – this is it, okay? "Is there a podcast that covers the bare basis of our faith and holds that while still reading something or listening to something with the discerning mind we're able to test things like Paul described while still looking at the distinctive that makes us Christian and answers people's questions, read their books or works with the respect that affirms their dignity while acknowledging that their beliefs are different be they Christian, Atheist, Muslim, etc."

That's the question on the table, and so gentlemen, how do we think about the process of theological discernment, and how do we talk about that in ways that people can engage the ideas that are present on the one hand and yet think their way in a healthy way through all the options that are out there?

That's the really important stuff, and then stuff that goes around it. A bounded set is worried about where the edges are and making sure everything is defined, and then the tendency of a bounded set is to treat everything within the circle a kind of equal level, whereas the idea of a centered set is now these are more central to what's going on and core and then the stuff as you move out from the center is kind of more open and discussable. Is this a good way to think about this kind of a topic?

To the degree that something contributes or is informed by that or is essential to that center, that increases its centrality and we might say importance or its cruciality to the faith or what I sometimes describe as these are identity forging doctrines of the faith without which this is not Christianity. But we wouldn't, or most of us wouldn't say our view of the angels or our view of the timing of the Rapture is part of that central core. So keeping that in mind, there is such a thing as a boundary and there is such a thing as outside of the bounds of orthodoxy, but also within orthodox we have to realize there are some things that are central and some things that are more peripheral in a Pluto kind of orbit in many cases.

Let's find another d, maybe call that things about which we make decisions. We have dogma, doctrine, and then decisions, or we might talk about what the creeds crystalize for us, and then there are confessions, Westminster, DTS, Baptist, and then there are things about which we hold convictions. So for example, baptism is a core Christian doctrine. There is one faith, one baptism, but different traditions practice baptism differently. Some pour, some immerse, some sprinkle.

There are different practices, and then we could talk about convictions. It might be something like the temperature of the water. Although if you're being baptized as I was when I was re-baptized into baptistery where the heater didn't work, that third might be –

A is I'm so sure about this that I might argue with God about it like Peter did. B is I know we disagree, but I'm pretty sure I think I have this right, and then C is if we get to heaven and I find out you're right I won't be surprised, and D is let's be honest and flip a coin. Neither of us knows. And so there's this spectrum and you attach to some degree both depending on the doctrine where it's located in the sphere that we're talking about and the nature of the decisions that go into deciding between the options tells you how hard or how loosely to hold on to what it is that you're talking about. I think that's another way to think about this.

It's an observation I like to make about the older creeds and what I think is not there that's important. That is the older creeds were obviously formed – now I'm thinking about creeds like the Nicene Creed – were formed because of specific controversies that triggered why they were core confessions. Very, very valuable, essential. I'm in a church where we recite the Nicene Creed virtually every week, but I read those creeds and I go, there's not a word about orthopraxy or how you respond to this core content, etc, which raise a whole other question of the relationship between what we believe, the ideas we believe, the theology that we have, and the way in which we live, and that sometimes gets lost in these conversations as well because we end up being focused on what is belief.

We don't think about how we say it. We don't think about what the implications are for life coming out of it, that kind of thing oftentimes, and as a result there's even a gap in how we talk about orthodoxy a lot of times.

So in baptism they are being baptized into the story, but we also know the centrality of baptism it was also a repentance and a commitment to live a certain lifestyle, and with that came not just Trinitarian instruction and the orthodoxy but also instruction, and it usually took the form of the two ways instruction. This is not how we live the way of death or darkness. That's not how we live, but this – I don't know. But this is the way we live, the way of life, the way of light. So in baptism, baptism brought together both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

So even though it's not explicit there in the creed, you're right, these are addressing specific issues of orthodoxy, but orthopraxy too was reinforced prior to, during, and after baptism and people were called according to live to their baptismal pledge. So they're there and it is wrong for us to not acknowledge the function of baptism as both a confession of faith and a commitment to a certain lifestyle that is Christian and that is part of the faith just as much as the Trinitarian theology.

One is to say that oftentimes when Christians engage with culture, particularly in the kind of time that we've come at more recently in which there's a lot of combat going on, it can tend to be that we always engage culture negatively as if there aren't echoes and whispers and voices out of the culture that don't aspire to things that are Biblical in the best sense of that term. So how do we help people appreciate that dimension and think through how to talk about culture in those places where those aspirations are being expressed and almost being searched for.

So my simple answer is, and this will sound ironic, my simple answer is that we ought to listen a great deal more than we talk and we ought to ask questions to understand instead of assuming just because this person isn't using the language we use, just because this person isn't quoting a Bible verse or this person doesn't actually express the truth that's found in the Scriptures, and we who know the Scriptures, we who know the Trinitarian narrative, we who know that the content of our hope, the basis of our hope is the risen and returning Christ can actually connect that story to the longing of the heart that this person really doesn't know what he or she is longing for.

The longings for significance, the longings for affirmation that come, the longings for being appreciated for who human beings are, that kind of thing. Those aspirations we see in writings, sometimes we see expressed in some of the more effective art that comes out of the culture, some of the lyrics in music can express those aspirations. I think finding those touch points in our engagement can help us in beginning to think about building bridges to why a Christian perspective on those hopes can help fill them out.

That generates great discussion and growth opportunities even in understanding that core better and highlighting that core, but the question does end with what about those completely outside the faith, antagonistic to the faith, atheists are even mentioned, and the reality is though we assert that everything that the Bible affirms is true, not everything that's true is necessarily in the Bible. I tend to use the idea of dentistry. There are a lot of things that my dentist knows that are not in the Bible, but I'm not going to say "I need a Christian dentist because I want someone who practices Biblical dentistry" where they looked up all of the passages.

I think sometimes there's an underlying fear element that's expressed in what's being raised in the email that I think we have to deal with. There's a very interesting passage in 1 Peter 3 in the very passage where it says "Be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within you" and another part of it says "But do so with neatness and respect" as you're engaging. The larger frame around that passage is even more fascinating in some ways because the way into that passage is that the way we're supposed to react to a world that challenges us, and sometimes even treats us wrongly, is to not do so out of fear but to do so out of confidence, a confidence that our position and status in the Lord gives us the security that we need even to walk into a world that's hostile.

I think I look at the church today and the way it engages and I see a lot of engagement coming out of a fear, out of a sense of a loss of control, to which my reminder is you probably never had control of this to begin with, and I think that's an important factor in all of this as well. How do you engage faithfully and fearlessly if I can say it that way?

So you're actually diving into that passage in the midst of a tension of living in a fallen world and what a fallen world does. A fallen world isn't always just. Things don't always work out right. Sometimes the just are punished, and so how do you function well out of that? It seems to me your faith has to be regarded in God. You have to fear the right things to fear, the things that are destructive in your life, that can bring destruction to your life, but you also do so I think with an element of confidence that your security and identity are wrapped up in your faith and not in the circumstances in which you find yourself.

In my opinion if there's a big gap between orthodoxy and orthopraxy then we probably don't understand orthodoxy because it seems like that would be a natural overflow. So even when I talk to someone about sin or grace or something like that in our context, I don't think those terms are really well understood. So what are some ways that we can kind of bridge that gap and that misunderstanding?

So anybody who would be a baptized believer would be coming at this with a basic fundamental understanding of the language, the confession, the narrative, where they fit in this, and what's expected of them. So I think really in reducing baptism merely to an opportunity to confess my faith in Jesus rather than embracing everything that it originally was meant to do has put us in that situation where we have people who believe in Jesus, but they don't really even know what that means. So restoring this to its place I think would at least give us an opportunity in our ecclesiology to address some of those problems.

So bringing catechism and bringing orthopraxy and orthodoxy together teaching with – and teaching consistently, and by teaching I don't simply mean standing up and giving people information – that actually the creeds function in confessions as a teaching tool, as a way to help, and they also do, back to the earlier conversation, they remind us of the core and they also establish some of the boundaries. This is the way we talk about who we are in this community. These people in that community, they talk about it differently. We believe some of these things in common, but we express it in practice differently. So the really short answer, which is what I could've just said, the really short answer is we teach them.

For an example, there may be the reality where one would say "Well we believe we could lose our salvation" and one would say "Well we're secure in our salvation for eternal security" etc. Where is that defining line that says well, if that person truly doesn't understand the Gospel and does not accept Jesus Christ by faith, then where do we draw that line? Because it is difficult when we deal with one another because we wanna love our brothers and sisters, but there is a passion and a desire to make sure that we do not fall on our convictions of these essentials that are being attacked by the outside so dramatically.

The people who say you can lose your salvation versus the people who say you're eternally secure have actually two sets of different concerns that they're pursuing when they answer that question that way in many ways. The person who is secure is probably resting in understanding of God's sovereignty and involvement in the discussion that takes you in one direction. The person who says you can lose your salvation may well have gone through or be sensitive to experiences of people who on the surface look very much like they were in but completely turned away at one point or another and they're trying to explain that theologically, that kind of thing.

So the point of the complexity of the answer is that part of being a master of theology if I can put it in degree terms is actually appreciating not just what you believe but the nature of the conversation that you have as you believe it. That's what an education is about, and so to me that's not a watering down, that's actually a creating of a depth that allows you to negotiate the space of these differences without moving into a place where you just get emotional and react. You actually have some substance to work with.

So I tend to have some hope for people and maybe a bad instruction, but if they persist on it and fight with me over Bible versus I have no problem saying that person is a heretic. If he doesn't claim to be a Christian, remember you can only be a heretic if you claim to be a Christian. Otherwise this is an infidel or an unbeliever or something like that. That's a different category. Yeah I don't have a problem doing that, but I reserve that word for a very, very specific kind of case.

Let me close this in a word of prayer. Father, we do thank You for just the opportunity we have to be in a place where we can gather together as believers and reflect on what it is that You have done for us, not just the teaching of Your Word, but the presence of Your spirit, the immersion that we have in Your grace, the presence that we have in Your creation. You surround us with goodness and we rejoice in that. May we take what we have reflected on today and use it in a way so that when we teach or preach or live that we do so in ways that are honoring to You and that represent in a helpful way the Gospel to a world that certainly needs to hear good news. We ask these things in Jesus name. Amen.