The Theological Smorgasbord 12.28.2024

    There are a couple keys to enjoying a buffet or smorgasbord. Key number one: Know what you like and why. Items that you know you like are easily appreciated, and because you might eat them more often it is not the time to indulge in your favorites. Key number two: Portion control. Don’t go crazy until you know what you’re dealing with. Don’t get so much that you can’t evaluate texture and flavor. Third Key: Don’t confuse exotic or novel with good. There are some things which are just wrong, or bad. There is a temptation to think “OH, it’s new, exotic, or “in”, I love it!” When in fact, you don’t like it That’s fine. Don’t surrender your judgment for the applause of others. Fun fact. This is not really about food, but theology.

    What characteristics do buffets and the contemporary theological landscape share? Variety. Breadth. Novelty. Antique interest. Too much focus on practicality. Most of all a propensity to uncontrolled, undisciplined consumption leading to a form of theological nausea. The keys I mentioned for dining at a Buffet should allow us the ability to nibble without overdoing it.

It is not possible to fully map dining with study, so allow me to take the keys I mentioned above and turn them into heuristic categories that will help us to benefit from the theological buffet without overindulging. 

1. Your formative diet.

    Like your diet, your baseline theology is derived from what you consume. In the vernacular— “you are what you eat.” Historically, most Christians had a consistent diet based on their tribe. Some were more exotic; others might be called bland. Each shared allegiance to the saving Gospel of Jesus but differed in the particulars.

    I am who I am by birth and choice. I am a part of the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. We have some very close siblings (Non-instrumental Churches of Christ) and conflicted siblings (Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ). We also have some cantankerous uncles (various Baptist and Presbyterian bodies.) What I am today, is a function of that historic theological diet. 

    The importance of this key is in knowing that this is the case. For too many believers both across the evangelical landscape and within my tribe the theological smorgasbord has seemingly become the opportunity for uncontrolled, almost hedonistic theological consumption. Which is fine—so long as you “know what you “like” and why”. The moment a person becomes confused about the formative content of their diet is the moment that they risk a kind of theological nausea brought on by an increasingly unfamiliar, unbalanced, or unhealthy diet.  

    I want to say “Keep that in mind” when you are exploring alternative theological cuisines…but I’m not entirely sure that enough people—even in church leadership know, understand, and respect the difference in various theological traditions. I love M&Ms. But I’m starting to realize that the feel-good sugar rush is not necessarily a good thing. The same is true with feel-good sugar rush theology. 

2. Portion Control. 

    Once we understand what we like, and why—the diet that made us who we are, we can sample from the theological smorgasbord with some discretion. The next key is portion control. We need to know what the great theologians of the past have said—even when they are in error. We need to sample what they offer, not binge. The growth of the Church over two millennia has been encouraged by geniuses who have both spurred that growth and hindered it. Historic theology and the history of effects in Biblical interpretation have by necessity been experimental. Inaccuracy or errors of omission are not as egregious as malicious errors of spite. Given our calling each of us is responsible for understanding both the broad strokes of orthodox theology and the minutia. 

     We need to read Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Bonhoeffer, Barth, and Wright. We won’t always agree, but there are times when they are correct, and we need to be able to incorporate correct interpretation and theology wherever we find it. 

    A balanced diet of the right portions from a variety of what is offered on the theological smorgasbord not only keeps us aware of what the broader Church has taught, and it is teaching it ensures that we are in the Biblical mainstream. Our reading diet should be both curious and broad. We should approach the smorgasbord willing to try virtually anything, in small portions until we know whether and how it will contribute to a balanced, Biblical diet. 

3. Appropriate judgment. 

    Judgment is an intellectual skill. Our judgment improves as we exercise it with diligence, deliberation, and discretion. If we never sample any other cuisine, we will soon find that we are ill-equipped to even notice when something is sound or unsound. Good judgment allows us to be particular and specific without being provincial and snobbish. Everyone, everywhere, at all times thinks that their native cuisine is the “best.” It is always a shock to the system to discover that others have produced foods that are different, yet flavorful. Theology is often the same way. We all have a lot to learn from each other if we use our critical faculties appropriately and have an open dialogue with those from other exegetical traditions or theological backgrounds. 

    We are who we are because we think we are right. That is appropriate. If we were not grounded in our own theological and exegetical traditions, we would lack a firm foundation when tested. We could not express our distinct identities. We would not really have anything to offer except for the generic, watered-down theology that is now available everywhere. 

Summary

    It is time for each of us to attend to our diet. Some foods offer an ecstatic rush to our theological tastebuds. The ecstasy is temporary. If the Church continues to seek out these adrenaline rush moments without due reflection, we will soon be in the place where congregations will seek to surround themselves with preachers and teachers who will willingly cater to their twitching tastebuds. They will abandon classic cuisine--the tried-and-true recipes from the past. Rather, they will look for preachers who serve as Avant-Garde chefs who make drama, decoration, and experience the heart of their work rather than a mastery of the basics.

When that is the diet of the Church, we will feel full, but be malnourished. And a malnourished Church has little to offer to a starving world.

Choose your own Misadventure 12.21.2024

    Law, Medicine, and Theology were the first professions. If lawyers practiced law and doctors practiced medicine the way many clergy practice theology, the prisons, hospitals, and cemeteries would all be full. Full of the victims of such abuse of authority. 

    In many areas of life, a “choose your own adventure” approach is dangerous. We have too many Church leaders who are not only unschooled, but uneducated—even opposed to acquiring the learning necessary for responsible preaching, teaching, and pastoral work. The confusion in the pulpit often reflects institutional confusion and the (now) clear mistake of turning so much of our intellectual and spiritual life over to para-church organizations. 

    It may seem daunting to know that in your “Parrish”, for your congregation, you are the resident theologian. There may be others who are well-read in the disciplines of ministry and who are faithful stewards of the Word. Yet you are the guy every Sunday responsible for proclaiming the living Word to those thirsty for the water of life. We all come from somewhere and have a variety of formative experiences. These experiences make us who we are. We choose at some point which tribe we want to be a part of. The educational institutions we train at, in the not-so-distant past tended to be those affiliated with our brotherhood, denomination, or broader theological movement. That sense of community is eroding. The growth of a distinct and generic “Evangelical” world unattached to specific structures of ecclesiastical authority does have some benefits. Yet I am afraid that our attempt to learn from everyone has led us to uncritical acceptance of everything and left us not learning anything from anybody—except for how to be confused. Those who are confused in their thinking tend to be confused in their preaching. When a preacher embarks upon a “choose your own adventure” approach to the theological essentials he or she has thereby included every member of their congregation in that adventure, whether they know it or not. 

    Do not misunderstand what I am saying. Each of us has a diverse library. We listen to voices that feed us spiritually and intellectually. The choice of materials for those of us in real-world ministry is often driven by accessibility and cost. We fellowship with and attend developmental conferences from many differing theological perspectives. The truth is not exclusive to our perspective and the essential truths are the common heritage of the Great Tradition of Christian teaching. It is OK to have many teachers and to have broad learning experiences. Just never forget who you are. I am not advocating for separatism; I’m campaigning for clarity. Clarity comes from having a Biblical, Theological, and Historical center to your scholarship. You need a solid perspective and firm foundation to guide your development as a preacher/scholar/pastor. 

    The alternative may seem like a grand adventure. If you are going to drink from many wells you need to have the discernment to identify which are tainted or even poisoned. Some who choose their own adventure, going off “courageously” with no firmly established point of theological reference are simply wandering about aimlessly trying in vain to make give their aimlessness the appearance of purpose. 

    When I hear sermons that seem theologically profound, but are disconnected from clear, accurate exegesis or when I participate in worship and songs are sung that are clearly written to promote a specific unbiblical theological doctrine, it is then that I return to home base--the grid of beliefs which has been formative for our branch of the Restoration Movement. When someone states that they are not concerned with the origin of a song or insight only in finding what “works” or when a leader is dismissive of the theological background of whoever produced a message or song, their cavalier attitude says either “I don’t know” or “I don’t care.” Unfortunately, even when you choose your own adventure, you don’t always get to choose the outcome.  

    The adventure we need to choose is the one that follows the intent of Christ as we find it in the New Testament. We are given great latitude culturally and socially as to how we are going to implement that vision. We will find commonality with others who share much of the same understanding of discipleship. We will part with them in some particulars. We can continue to each benefit when we maintain our distinct identity in the relationship. Once we submit to a watered-down compromise, we weaken the capacity of each to engage in unique ministry. 

    I know I say this a lot,  perhaps more than I should. This takes hard work, and it is only getting harder. The availability and accessibility of information demands greater critical assessment. The increased velocity of information also means an increase in the velocity of misinformation. We need to be readers, thinkers, and doers. We must engage broadly with various voices, always resting upon the identifiable markers of our faith tradition. You were chosen to lead these people. You were called and prepared to study the Scripture and proclaim the message. You were the one set apart for this. People will follow as you establish a clear and identifiable path in ministry. You will befriend and take counsel from individuals from other faith traditions, and you will not be any good for each other if you pretend your differences don’t exist. God called you to choose the adventure of your life. To partner with Him in the study and the pulpit to plot the course for your congregation. You are responsible for mapping out that course. Unfold the map, get out your pencil, and get to work.

Clarity Amid the Complexity 12.14.2023

     Last week we discussed confusion and the various contexts in which confused preaching to a confused Church leads to a confused expression of the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”.  This week I want to discuss an issue that riffs off last week’s discussion of ambiguity. There is a seeming paradox which confronts the preacher every week. While the message of salvation itself is simple, it is embedded in the Bible which is becoming more opaque and foreign within our culture. The history of effects (interpretation) of the Biblical text teaches us that the stories we know, and love have had varied interpretations and applications both inside and outside the Church for centuries. The nature and presentation of scripture is complex, though the ultimate point is simple. Much of our problem comes from mistaking the focal application of the Gospel with the process of understanding of how that salvation story comes to be. 

    Sound Biblical interpretation requires us to navigate the treacherous road between complexity and simplicity. It can be difficult because we sometimes misunderstand complexity's role in human understanding. This misunderstanding leads to the erroneous conclusion that “real” truth is simple and that simplicity and clarity are the same thing. When this turns out not to be the case, and the exegete or congregant is confronted with textual complexity, they make the preliminary judgment that the topic in question has been made complex by preachers, professors, “experts” or unbelievers. One of the jobs of a preacher is to help people come to grips with complexity—not explain it away.

    As an example, we will consider how best to understand the life of Christ. Knowing who Jesus is, and the facts of His incarnation and presence among us are essential to understanding the Christian faith. The New Testament does not contain a “life of Christ.” There is no “biography of Jesus.” If there were, preaching would be much simpler! Instead, the New Testament exegetical preacher is confronted with Four gospels. In world literature, Gospels are sui genreris=a thing unto itself, unique. Three of the four Gospels are called “synoptics” because their viewpoint, broad outline, and “plot” are basically the same. The fourth, John is an outlier that presents a story of Jesus that is more theological and reflective.  Each Gospel tells the story of Jesus. It is the same story, differently told for different reasons. Each Gospel reflects a facet of the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

    One of the earliest, albeit still ongoing exegetical projects within the believing Church is “harmonizing”. A gospel harmony is an attempt to weave a single narrative structure from the four Gospels. The first of these was created by the 2nd-century Assyrian Christian Tatian. His goal was to provide in a single volume the complete, preserved contents of the four canonical Gospels in a continuous text. He may have been the first but certainly not the last. There are harmonies available in virtually every format, language, and presentation. From where I sit in my study “I spy with my little eye…4 gospel harmonies.”  Even visual media like the Chosen series you may be streaming right now tells the story of Jesus in a harmonized fashion rather than following the storyline of a single Gospel. Why? Two reasons. 1. Complexity. 2. Clarity. It can be very difficult to achieve clarity when engaging a complicated subject and for some, it is just easier to eliminate the complexity.  Thus, we circle back to the topic at hand. How do we create clarity of understanding without sacrificing what the text actually says?

    Explanation. There are times when we must explain what is going on within an individual the text, and between the various gospels. For some reason, it was God’s good pleasure to tell the inspired story of His Son this way. He has left the interpretive work, the detailed study, and the explanation to us. Exegesis should not explain away the complexity. Exegesis seeks clarity amid the complexity. Faithful preaching tells the story of Jesus Biblically. Not every story contains all the details we would like. The process of “filling in details” from parallel accounts eliminates the complexity and ambiguity that, for some reason, God wanted to be there. That kind of explanation provides a clear picture. Yet often it is not the picture painted by the gospel authors. It is a composite that they would only barely recognize. 

    Now, (and this is where the duck begins to splash around uncontrollably in the pond) if we cannot explain the scripture to Christians without simplifying it so much that we alter its character; what are our chances with a culture that does not share our assumptions? This has always been a problem, and until the last half-century a problem embraced by the Church. The New Testament compels us to live a humble, Christlike life. We defend that lifestyle by appealing to scripture. When the unbelieving world persistently asks about the reason for our hope, we connect our conspicuous behavior to a Biblically grounded belief system. This requires us to live as humble, sacrificial servants—just like Jesus. When the Church does that, it has impact and a voice for explaining and proclaiming the saving Gospel of Jesus. 

    A church that lives like that earns for itself quite a bit of latitude in explaining what it believes—however complex it might be. A church that is cantankerous, un-Christlike, unloving, and mean-spirited loses the audience before the explanation begins. Theology, History, Biblical understanding—all the elements of a robust and healthy faith require behavior that matches our belief. If we lack the former the latter has no impact. 

    Question: “HEY. I thought this was a discussion of hermeneutics! What do Theology, History, and Biblical exegesis have to do with Christian practice?  With living like loving like, and cross-carrying like Jesus?”

Answer: “Everything.”

Confusion 12.7.2023

    Theology in in general, and systematic theology in particular, is designed to “simplify” the complicated message of scripture into intelligible chunks for differing cultural contexts. Now, if you regularly read the “great” German theologians you will question that statement. Obviously, Butlmann was complicated, Barth long-winded, Bonhoeffer earnest, and Tillich unintelligible. Leaving aside the Teutonic approach, systematic Theology is largely concerned with eliminating the natural ambiguity of scripture. 

    There was a time, perhaps when this was understandable. What was once helpful has now become the source of expanding confusion, particularly within the various strands of evangelical Protestantism(s). It is clear that in both pulpit and pew there is a lack of clarity, nay confusion, about how one moves from Biblical text to community proclamation and personal application. There is a lot of blame to go around. Rather than focusing on names, campuses, or movements, I think that it is best to take a broad approach to identify the source of the turmoil and seek to define a long-term approach. Not so much a solution as a strategy. When we take a strategic approach, we will at times discover that the Biblical text is not as concrete as we think. Mature Christianity accepts that God’s providence works through the ambiguity of scripture as well as the (from our perspective) indeterminacy of historical processes. Ambiguity and indeterminacy make us very uncomfortable. How can we earnestly say “Thus says the Lord” amid those realities? That, my friends, is why we must work faithfully, accurately, and diligently.

    During the next year, I will use this space to explore the interplay between the three primary factors that contribute to our Christian understanding. They are:

• The Bible accurately interpreted.

• Theology grounded in accurate interpretation.

• History as the outcome of choices about our understanding and interaction with the world. 

    Most current errors in the broader Church are traceable to one or more of these factors. This matrix of Bible, Theology, and History requires critical reflection combined with creative integration. Determined exegesis, disciplined theology, and descriptive history remind us that even as He revealed Himself to us, God had to deal with indeterminacy—and often speaks to us in Scripture with a discomforting ambiguity. To be clear—ambiguity is a feature to be embraced, not a bug to quash. The search for certainty and clarity often leads the Church to make concrete declarations based upon misunderstood, incorrectly applied, and decontextualized texts. Often the motivation is the removal of the ambiguity that is present in the text. Sometimes faithful exegesis means explaining to our listeners that a text contains uncomfortable ambiguities. Sometimes the purpose is to make us uncomfortable! The text is what it is and says what it says. Our job is not to buffer our congregations from it but to teach them to embrace it. Accurate interpretation should lead us to full faithfulness to Christ. The New Testament call to follow Jesus often leaves the decision to us, requiring us to relinquish our need for clarity, in obedient submission. 

    This week is designed to be a preview of what needs to be done. Throughout the year we will discuss the phenomena of why so many who claim to be Christian are wholly ignorant of what the Bible says, Theology teaches, and History discloses. Unfortunately, this painful analysis reveals that circumstances may actually be worse than they appear.  

    It is difficult to correct error without calling attention to it. It is not my intention to hurt feelings or question motives. It is essential to have a clear idea of what is driving the current crippling ignorance. Though it is not necessarily malicious the current confusion is just as destructive and leaves the Church crippled, compromised, and inconsequential in both making disciples and offering redemption to a fallen culture. 

Some passages in Scripture reward constant attention and consistent application. Such a passage is found in Acts 6.

“Acts 6:1   Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Acts 6:3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. Acts 6:4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Acts 6:5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. Acts 6:6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.” (Acts 6:1-6 ESV)

 This passage is particularly relevant because it mirrors both the contemporary tension we face as well as the proper resolution for crisis and confusion in the Church. In understanding scripture, theology, and history the primary inflection points involve the institutional structure of the Church, the role of leaders, and the process of personal discipleship. 

Institutional Confusion

    These should be simple questions. What is the Church for, Who is it for? Yet the contemporary Church seems to be captured by culture. Sometimes this captivity is catastrophic. Submitting to secular authorities or subsuming our role beneath the passing fads and fancies of any political movement drives us to conclusions and practices that compromise our capacity to speak truth to that culture. The Church is here to represent Christ. We have no other loyalty, no other allegiance, no other responsibility than to proclaim and model the unsearchable riches of Christ. That is what the Church is for. Historically this has meant the Church has been marginalized or even persecuted. Theologically this means that expressing our faith is at odds with the prevailing social and cultural context in which we operate. That is not only fine, that is the norm. If a large portion of any political constituency is applauding our thinking, acting, or preaching then we need to seriously consider whether we have exceeded our mandate. 

    In Acts 6 we see a second example of institutional confusion. This occurs when we substitute the mission of the Church for other good deeds—particularly those that flow from the implications of our mission. The Jerusalem Church confused the necessary good of taking care of needy widows with the central purpose of prayer and scripture study. 

    There are a lot of good things that I would like to do. There are good things the Church can and should do. When those good things, whatever they are distract us from our central purpose(s) we have forgotten what Christ has called us to do. 

Professional Confusion

    The next example of confusion regards the task of those “called to ministry." What is the job of this “professional” ministry? In the Jerusalem Church, there were clearly some who thought that the Apostles were the only ones called to service. This external pressure, covered in just a few short verses surely was more intense than we commonly understand it to be. There seemed to be elements of sexism, nativism, and favoritism driving this first crisis in the internal workings of the Church. It surely presented an inflection point for the definition of ministry and the Apostles made a clear statement about their job. The ministry of word and prayer. 

    In some ways, we are still facing that first crisis. What is my task as a preacher? The more broadly we define that task the greater the chances are that the people we will be asking to do it will be improperly equipped and unnecessarily pressured. Pressured to do things that compromise their ministry of the Word and make it difficult to focus on what is essential. 

    Preaching must be our central priority. Prayer is the foundation of good preaching. We work through the text with our intellect engaging the indwelling Spirit the Spirit of God that inspired the text. Prayerful study takes solitary time. It takes commitment. It takes saying no to good things to do the one, best thing. 

Individual Confusion

    You are not going to heaven by yourself. Jesus died to save and sanctify His Church. Much of contemporary Christianity is as focused on the individual as modern Psychology. Your pulpit is not for counseling and there are times people won’t like what they hear. Some of those people may complain or leave. It happens. In fact, it happened to Jesus. People then did not like the hard truths, any more than they do now. One of the central jobs of ministry is telling the truth about the human condition. We do so with love and compassion because no one likes to be corrected. The difference is that we are not called to scold we are called to bring people to repentance. 

    Biblical ministry begins with what scripture says and moves from scripture to people. The trend of beginning with what people think they need, or pressing cultural concerns ultimately yields a narrow understanding of scripture—God is always going to meet my needs, God is always ready to rescue me, and God is primarily concerned with me. The word for that is selfishness. We should be over it by kindergarten. When the Church overly focuses on the individual, his/her maturity, concerns, wants, needs, and wishes it will never learn to walk by faith. It’s not all that hard to find something to say that satisfies everybody all the time. The word for that is “pandering.”

Concluding Reflections

    These are not easy times. That is OK. Neither Roman Philippi nor Corinth were exactly a picnic. The faith once and for all delivered to the saints was designed to flourish in harsh conditions. The very difficulties we encounter drive us to Jesus and deepen our faith. At least they should. Unless we submit to the cultural climate of “muscular Christianity” that abandons the submissive strength of humility for the hubris of power.