I have mentioned before that I had no real doctrinal understanding of theology growing up. I had my beliefs, as we all do, but I had no idea why I believed what I believed. It was merely what I was told, and the teachings that were consistent in all of the churches and from my parents were deeply embedded in me, while other teachings that had variances from one setting to another have come into question.
As this search has progressed, I have been systematically been going through various teachings and doctrines to determine reasons why I should believe them, and no doctrine has been exempt from this search. This includes the sinful nature of mankind, the matter of whether or not the substitutionary atonement was sufficient for me and other such doctrines. My search is not over, as I am currently undeclared in the matter of paedobaptism, eschatology and several other matters. The things I have decided upon through an almost Barean search of the Bible have not disappointed, and the things left to be decided are not ones that are “make or break” matters regarding salvation. That is why they haven’t been as thoroughly researched as matters of final import. I won’t say that I am coming up with a theology unique to me, for I compare and contrast different stances. Time and again, I find my comfort in the same views that were rediscovered in the reformation.
As important as the ways I have used to discover what I believe are, I also have a short list of things that I will no longer accept as valid reasons to believe anything. It’s not unlike my matrix I use when choosing a breakfast cereal from the store shelf. If it changes the color of the milk (Fruit Loops), you can color me uninterested. If it has marshmallows (Lucky Charms), I’m puffed up in my distaste. If it leaves a film on the roof of my mouth (Captain Crunch), I reject the selection as surely as I’ll spit out the cereal. Quite often, a cereal is rejected for several reasons, but it only takes one for it to not be accepted. It is possible that a cereal may fail my test, and still be accepted, though (Cocoa Pebbles). I am willing to give a cereal a chance to redeem itself once, and usually that is enough for me to make a permanent decision regarding my consumption of said cereal.
Listed below is a few reasons why I will not accept certain teachings any longer. This can involve several kinds of belief, from theology to politics to economics to history and any number of other subjects. The teaching may be valid and good, but I will not accept it if it is based solely on any of the listed criteria I am sharing here and not through Biblical study, or other reputable means depending on the subject matter.
I was raised in of a conservative Republican, protestant home. Through my own searching, I have decided that these are all correct from several standpoints. But I looked at the pros and cons of each of these (and other) belief systems with an understanding of what all of this entails. As I have done so, I have modified my understandings, based on the resources available to me. I am learning to take the term “Semper Reformanda” quite seriously, indeed.
For my political stance, this was based on debates, the track record of the parties, what causes they champion and other matters. For religion, I have used the only standard that I will accept, that is the Bible. I am politically conservative, but lean more toward environmentalism than the traditional definition of a political conservative. Of course, anyone who will pollute their own living environment for financial gain is a fool, and the thought that republicans would rather poison the environment than not is a fallacy, but it doesn’t come up as one of the strong points that Republicans are known to debate. Perhaps they just seek to separate from liberalism every chance they get. I don’t know.
Regardless of the reason, if I were to look to the fallacy of what was told to me and what never came up in conversation to base my belief, I would be as much a fool as someone who would dump toxins into the water they are drinking. Likewise, as a Christian, I would be a fool to believe every teaching ever presented to me unless it was supported Biblically and not refuted Biblically. There are occasions where the Bible seems to be unclear, and that is where disputes often originate. Biblical literacy is important to determine the correct interpretation, and thus the correct application. In matters that remain inconclusive from an objective stance, grace among different viewpoints becomes essential.
I will believe a theological doctrine that I am told only if scriptural support is given and then only if scriptural refute is either not found or does not effectively support its objection to the support.
When Cassius Clay changed his name to Mohamed Ali and announced his belief in Islam, there were black people around the world who became Muslims. The same thing holds true with people following Scientology based on Tom Cruise and John Travolta. To subscribe to a belief system based on the respect you have for one of its proponents is not a valid reason for believing what they believe. For this reason, I will not have empathy for the poorest countries of the world if my reason for doing so is that I am a fan of U2. I do believe many of these countries need our aid, but not for the reason that Bono says they need it. I believe this based on the compassion I have and the command of the Lord to love our neighbor.
Following any belief based on the belief of another really is nothing more than following a crowd. You don’t know for sure where they will end up, but you’ll be in good company, at least that is the hope. This is why belief based on someone else’s belief cannot be trusted without objective truth accompanying it. To blindly follow the teaching of another without finding out if it is factual or not is worse than not learning what they would teach you from the beginning.
Do not try to drop a name on me of someone who believes in something if you expect me to believe it as well. Show me the proof and I will respond to it. Tell me that anyone prominent follows it and I will ask you why they believe in that interpretation.
This is, in my own opinion, the very definition of why a post-modern thinker would want to follow a teaching. More and more we see examples of the church trying to accommodate these people, losing its own identity in the process. Appeals are made to the emotions of those who would listen to the preaching, and if the message is powerful enough and/or the peer pressure is great enough, converts will stream down to the front to receive the advertised vacation package.
Case in point: while watching a certain television sermon, the pastor spoke about how the Lord would rebuke the debts of His people and asked people to write down their bills and send them to him along with a contribution to the ministry. These bills would be burned on a golden alter in the parking lot of the church. This is a protestant church, by the way, and just enough out-of-context scripture was given in the sermon to connect the preacher’s ideas. Those in TV land could be a part of this in the method I just described. Those in the congregation could have their debtors smitten by coming forward and asking Jesus into their hearts.
The people were primarily racial minorities, and the commercial messages for the church proclaimed that it was in a financially weak section of the town in which it is located. Do you think there were many occupied seats after the masses poured down the aisles? They were few and far between. The emotional offer for financial freedom from “the man” was too powerful a message for that demographic.
Were their conversions valid? I’m not the one to say. Was the gospel preached? No.
THESIS TWO: SOLUS CHRISTUS
We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.
We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.
By this definition, the gospel was not preached or even alluded to. The power of the word was reduced to debt consolidation and finance management, and the people in the congregation ate it up! It was a sermon that was very animated. In fact, the preacher routinely carries a black handkerchief to wipe the sweat from his brow as he preaches his sermons of healthy eating and debt reduction. The only debt I want to hear in a sermon is the eternal debt of gratitude I owe to my savior, Jesus Christ.
If you want me to respond to your preaching, keep it biblical and do not try to appeal to my fallen emotions, but to the truth of the gospel.
I have listed three reasons not to approach me with a certain teaching. I have learned certain things on my own and through a more thorough search of the Bible than I once believed. This has caused me great joy, both in clearing up inconsistencies in my beliefs and in confirming other beliefs. The joy of knowing why I believe something is greater than the joy of believing something for the sake of tradition. I have learned things presented by others, and after searching the scriptures, much of it is valid. I delight in a sound teaching and in being presented new (to me) ways to interpret certain scripture passages that were once a mystery to me. This joy is only possible as they are researched and found to be true. I have found great joy in the emotions that come from all of this. The delight I have had comes from a knowledge of the truth, not from blindly following the emotional outbursts of a charismatic, but biblically unfounded, man.
Tradition, reputation and emotion are all important things to me. As important as they are, though, not a one of them is a reason I will accept to believe anything any longer.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:02 pm
I went to a Josh McDowell “Beyond Belief” session not too long ago and he said that 90% of the PASTORS he talks to are unable to answer the questions, “Why do you believe what you believe?” and “Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?” without resorting to tradition-type answers, some of which you cite, the same kinds of answers that a Mormon or Moslem could give.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Hi Doug, Great post! I have a couple of comments about it:
1. “It is all I have ever known”
In my family I am the one to break tradition. I was raised in a family that would be labeled as liberal atheists. As a child my parents were very much involved with the local democratic club and as far as I was to be concerned, all churches were corrupt “as long as you are a good person, you dont need to worry about anything”. I am 35 years old now, and a Christian Republican. I think I could have told my parents that I was leaving my husband and turning gay and they would have been happier then learning that I had so radically changed my life from how they have raised me.
No, I dont believe that just because it is all you have known, it is the right thing UNTIL you have RESEARCHED it and studied it on your own. Until this day, my parents have not given me a logical reason why I shouldn’t be a Christian. They have ranted and raved about it but have not set down and have a discussion about it.
2. “Someone I admire follows this system.”
I agree with you. Big names promoting a cause just because they are big names does not mean much to me. BUT if you look at this persons life, and see how his actions reflect what he believes in, then I might take a second look. Isn’t that how we are suppose to be known to the world? By the actions we take? By the light that we shine?
3. “It feels right”
Well geesh, alot of stuff feels right! If we worshipped everything that “felt right” can you imagine how strange the world would be? “The Church of the Everlasting Chocalate Bar”. In my younger days I would have gladly worshipped some of the bad “habits” that I had gotten myself into.
Seriously though, because “It feels good” is not a good argument for joining a religion. I have had some conversations with people of other religions, asking them how they know that what they are preaching is “right”, and the standard answer would always be “Because I feel it in my heart”. Well eating a spicy dinner will make my heart burn too but that is not a valid reasoning for following a religion. Yes, I call it a religion because I have a hard time of saying that it follows God.
Why I settled on the church that we are going to? It teaches the bible. The sermons come from the bible and are what we as a church our studying together.
Anywho, this is a long comment, I apologize for the length but there were just a few points that hit with me!
February 6th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Brother Doug, I must emphatically agree with you. As you know, our stories have much in common and that which you detail here is another area of similarity. I went through (and continue through) much of the same searching, learning and discovery. It cleared up so many inconsistencies for me and revealed truth that in some aspects were so different from “mainstream”. I liken this awakening to being unplugged from the Matrix. I will now only follow what is backed up by Scripture. For me that means fully and completely –Old and New “Testaments” in context –FULL BIBLICAL context.
This has led to divisions in my family, with friends (at times), and work scheduling issues. There have been many refining “tests”, such as financial strain when I discovered the truth about tithing. Wonderfully, those strains are going away and God is blessing my family.
Many times I find myself demonstrating what I have in common with mainstream Christian beliefs; focusing on Christ as our savior and redeemer. The reason being, as you show someone that what they have believed all their life isn’t supported, they label you and close their mind. In this way, I have firmly demonstrated my love for Christ and need of His redemption. The belief in salvation through Christ alone is something that cannot be attacked if it is the common ground set from the beginning.
So many people say that all they care about is Sola Scriptura. Ironically, when you use the Scriptures alone, they provide extra-Biblical reasons, like tradition, as refute. Pouring through Scripture turns most major traditions of mainstream Christianity on its collective ear. Tradition is something warned against so many times in Scripture, yet we have forgotten because we do not seek first the Kingdom of God. One way we can do this by examining God’s Word for what is written and not what we have been taught. I feel that this type of searching, Berean-like as I believe you have correctly stated, gives us an armor and resolve against “doctrines of devils”.
Maybe we need to ask less of “what would Jesus do” and more of “what did Jesus do”? Just a thought –nevertheless, your post is a wonderful one with a great lesson! Preach on, brother Doug!
April 3rd, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Recently heard the statement about Catholic teachings etc. “A teaching presented but not accepted by the congregation is not valid”.
Can’t recall the precise wording so I note this as a paraphrase.
It was used in the context of Rome presenting teachings on birth control that were not accepted by the American Congregation and therefore not valid. Again they referred to some dictum or other in church teachings.