In my previous post I stated my theory that the failure of TGC to identify the issues with the article produced by Josh Butler was not merely an isolated lapse of judgment but was reflective of a broader issue that I had noticed within contemporary evangelical culture – a drop in the standards of “thinking theologically”. There were a number of comments through social media asking for clarification, which I was always intending to provide but given that the post was already quite lengthy I chose to hold over a number of important points until I could go into them more fully. My pastoral work has (as usual) taken up a lot of time, so it is only now (a week later) that I can come back to my thesis. On the other hand, the extra time has provided me with some space to reflect on how I best explain what I believe is going on and I have shifted a little in my structure but not substance.
Perhaps a good place to begin is with another example of a lack of Christian discernment in contemporary evangelicalism that highlights what I contend a broader patterns and not just an isolated instance. A few years ago the hip-hop star and music producer Kanye West was receiving a lot of attention for his new Sunday Services which he launched on the back of his gospel album Jesus Is King from 2019. This was not a church plant as we might think of the term, but instead a series of worship services open to a select few that involved music direction from West himself, high production value, and preaching. Essentially they were a contemporary take on old-fashioned revival meetings but designed to be shared virtually and targeted at today’s urban youth. West was fired up with a passion to get young people interested in God and spent some time during an appearance on the JoeRogan Experience podcast discussing his vision and his belief in Jesus. At the time there were many established Christian leaders who supported the project – some argued that the effort made to show the cultural relevance of the gospel was worthy of endorsement, while others pointed to the way West used orthodox language about the nature of faith as proof of his authenticity. However, listening to West on JRE helped me to put West’s project in the context of his views on politics, media, the music industry, and much more. In essence, West’s project ended up being less about the exclusive proclamation of Jesus Is King and much more about a synthesis of spiritual and worldly power that was being concentrated in West personally and that he was using to stand as a bulwark against political conspiracy, music industry murder plots, and demonic influences. If you only looked at what West was doing and how he spoke about his biblical influences you could have been convinced that his efforts were a genuine (though admittedly quirky) attempt at public witness to Christ, and so it is not surprising that West received the support that he did. However, even a cursory investigation of why he began the project in the first place would have revealed some major differences between his theological vision and Christian orthodoxy which should have given more church leaders reason for pause. (On a side note, the Sunday Services seem to have run out of steam sometime in late 2020.)
So how then might Christians when confronted with a difficult new case, whether an online article or a new project for evangelism or anything else, begin to apply appropriate patterns of discernment? To begin, it is important to identify three distinct but related types of thinking: Christian, Biblical, and Theological.
Christian Thinking is reflection on a topic or issue with primary reference to the history, experiences, and culture of the church within applicable social context. Topics such as right to life, law enforcement, the environment, and social justice are placed within historic and social responses of the worshipping community. The patterns of thought and moral judgment are contrasted with other perspectives or experiences, whether religious or secular, with the aim of providing a positive witness of the practical impacts of Jesus to an unbelieving world. Christian Thinking is thinking within a communal perspective of faith and seeks to represent that community in a loving and united way even when that thinking might challenge assumptions.
Biblical Thinking is reflection on a topic or issue with primary reference to both relevant passages and the metanarratives of Holy Scripture. The primary tools of this type of thinking are exegesis and biblical theology. Effort is made to understand an issue with direct reference not only to key proof texts but also to the broader imagery and theme developed over the Bible. For example, Jesus’s promise of the gift of living water that brings eternal life (Jn 4:10-14) must be understood with reference to passages such as the original provision of living water in Eden (Gen 2:10-14), the water from the rock at Meribah (Exod 17:5-7), the river of life in the eternal city (Rev 22:1-3) and so forth. Biblical Thinking is bound by the limits of narrative and text and is framed by question that are linear and direct (e.g. “What does the text say and how can we understand it in its literary and historical context?”).
Theological Thinking is reflection on a topic or issue with primary reference to the interrelated coherence of the various facets and concepts that comprise the Christian faith. It is concerned not just with the repetition of the content of faith, but understanding the means by which, for example, Christians have come to confess God as Father, Son, and Spirit without compromising their simultaneous confession of God Is One. It will attempt to speak of divine mysteries that transcend the limitations of language (the nature of God, the atonement, eternity, etc.) while at the same time recognising that God has condescended to reveal truth through these limitations, much in the way that the fullness of the deity could be known in the man Jesus of Nazarety. Theological Thinking will have the ability to interact with both the Christian and Biblical categories while retaining a unique perspective. It seeks to bring our common confessions forward in new ways, but will remain engaged with the wisdom of ages past. Theological Thinking remains meditative as it engages in redeemed thinking in God’s presence.
In my view, contemporary evangelicals put a lot of energy and focus into the first two categories but have neglected the third. Cultural and ethical perspectives have replaced doctrinal, and there has been confusion between exegetical and systematic methods.
This is not to say that evangelicals are uninterested in doctrine. There are still a great many works of pure theology that are regularly produced, some of them quite popular. The problem is that too often (even for many in pastoral or other types of ministry) doctrine is treated as propositions to be affirmed rather than a process to participated in. It is important to confess, for example, that righteousness is Imputed rather than Imparted, but less clear as to what affirming the reverse may say not only about our view of Grace but also of the doctrine of God directly. There is not even a common consensus as to whether such debates are necessary or on which basis they might proceed.
Taking the recent Butler article as an example can highlight where the gaps in our collective thinking might occur. As noted earlier, the original article has been withdrawn so interacting with specific quotes is difficult (though I would like to mention here the analysis by Dani Treweek which does an excellent job of interacting with the particular errors contained in the limited selection of Butler’s work that was for a time made available). However, in the broadest sense, Bulter’s proposition was that the language of passages such as Ephesians 5 reveal the particular sexual act between husband and wife could be interpreted as a metaphor which reveals a deeper truth of the redemptive work of Jesus for the church. Without going too far into the specifics, we can see how such as thesis might pass the first two of our above Thinking categories – it was considering the topic from within a Christian perspective of marriage as a metaphor for Christ and the church, and was making a Biblical case for the conclusions drawn. However, while these perspectives could highlight issues with cultural or exegetical method, they do not by nature consider the problems with systematic method. Butler attempted to derive truth about the nature of the atonement from the particulars of the act of sexual union, which is the opposite of the systematic method historically employed. Rather than accept the limitations of worldly parallels with divine grace, Butler chose to focus more on the human particulars and extrapolate them out to divine reality. Such a method would turn the act of sexual intercourse into a sacrament, thus opening up pathways to spiritual abuse that are awful to contemplate. In the end, a case was made that looked Christian and could be justified (badly) Biblically but could not stand up to solid Theological scrutiny.
Herein lies our problem – are evangelicals up to the task of Thinking Theologically, and what does it mean to our public witness and our ongoing spiritual health? Much has been said in recent years about the Deconstruction movement, where those raised in church contexts come to re-examine their faith in light of modern challenges. On one hand, I have a lot of sympathy for many deconstructors as I believe they are grappling with teachings and practices that they have witnessed that do not seem to be very faithful or theologically robust. And, in the end, we should all have the ability and confidence to question the things that we have been taught. The problem has been that as many young Christians have gone about deconstructing their ability to reconstruct anything even remotely resembling historic orthodoxy has been revealed to be sadly lacking. Giving them the greatest benefit of the doubt, they were able to perceive the problems but had no idea how to go about solving it. It would be like me going into my kitchen with a drill, sledgehammer, and head full of dreams about a beautiful new renovation, only to discover after I had pulled apart all the cupboards and fixtures that I really have no idea about carpentry, cabinet making, plumbing, electrics, painting, or any of the other things I would need to know. So then, whether we are actively deconstructing or not, are we prepared to deal with a crisis of faith or one of the “strange new teachings” that Scripture warns us about if such a time should come upon us?
I strongly suspect that another issue similar to the most recent one will come upon us again before too long, and Christians of all denominations and convictions will need to decide how to respond. In the meantime there are some preliminary questions that we might do well to reflect on:
· - Are our present patterns of discernment inclusive of Christian, Biblical, and Theological types of thinking?
· - How good are we at distinguishing the types of thinking which drive different perspectives we encounter and at critiquing them via modes of thinking that are either underappreciated or absent in the issue at hand?
· - Are we able to discern the theological presuppositions of the ideas we encounter, and are we then able to answer them not just with confessionalism but applying appropriate theological methods of thinking?
No comments:
Post a Comment