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.