Doctrine is a lot like a fence – it exists to keep unwanted things out and keep wanted things in. But when we build fences (have certain “Biblical” positions) that were never intended to be built can it actually choke out true, Biblical faith (styles of music, dress, end-time positions, etc.). I believe God intended certain things to not have hard-line positions attached to them. They were meant to live in the open spaces, unanswered with a quick verse or pithy illustration. However, we can, in true pioneer fashion, refuse to let some issues remain untamed. I see Christians who are driven to draw conclusions since that helps them feel comfortable and protected, not awkward and vulnerable. I see it all the time: confident answers instill confidence in those who hear them. To hear a discussion with a person quickly muttering, “but I may be wrong” or “I am not sure” can give the impression of ignorance or sub-spirituality. I’m not saying being unsure is a virtue, but I am saying God’s Word was not written to answer all our questions. But it doesn’t have to. For example, the principle of “love one another” covers so much behavioral ground that it swallows large chunks of actions regardless of the topic. The Bible aims at 30,000 foot issues that govern attitude and behavior while we like the ground-level view – “how exactly should a person’s hair be if they are spiritual?”
Where the Bible does not take hard lines, neither should we. This does not mean that we then conclude that we are left in a dimly lit room with no hope and little confidence. We can always rely on the clearly revealed truth of God. There are doctrines that radiate from the Word of God and are intended to serve as “fences” (the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement, the deity of Christ, the depravity of man, etc.). We can also embrace all the hope and light we need in knowing Christ and believing that He does know all the answers and we don’t need to build OUR confidence in knowing everything, just knowing the ONE who knows everything.
That begs a question. How does one know Christ? How’s that for a softball?
Amen Dan. Kevin, please stop playing the devil’s advocate (not in a literal sense, just in the figurative sense).
AWWW the other shoe drops! It is true that we must build a doctrinal fence on who Jesus is. The mental qualities a person believes about Christ will be fundamental to the legitimacy of his or her faith. In other words, if a person believes Jesus was a great guy, life of the party, the ultimate friend and that’s it then they will not have assurance that they are redeemed. The Gospel is not only the propositional truth of Jesus’ activity, but also His person/identity. This “fence” is clearly portrayed in the Bible and should be built by every follower of Christ to keep heresy out and orthodoxy in. Distinguishing between a needed fence to keep the wolves out is great and critically needed in our day. My beef is when people want fences everywhere since it seems to uncomplicate life. However, God does not offer us that level of information and would we really want it any other way? We can better extend the various flavors and colors that make up the church through the freedom we all have to express ourselves without violated orthodox truth. While a fence may help keep people in line, it may also rob us of the variety and uniqueness that makes up the church.
Andrew, I like Kevin playing this role. It may help others who browse the blogs think through issues without offering their insights. We welcome all sincere inquires.
Anymore thoughts on which fences should be built and which ones should be deconstructed?
OK, here’s one… What about infant baptism? Should we have a fence to keep that doctrine/practice out?
I remember a study about children at recess. The kids whose playgrounds had fences used the whole playground; those without fences tended to stay closer to the school building.
It was used to bolster an argument that fences are good because when you know very clearly what the difference between “here” and “there” is, you don’t fear that you’ll end up “there.”
To that extent, the fences are good, because you really can’t grow if you have to puzzle over every little trifle to decide truth or error.
However, as you said, Dan, God hasn’t made “here” and “there” explicitly clear in lots of cases. Perhaps that’s because making sure that his followers stay “here” is his job – not ours. If it were up to us to stay on the right side of the fence, our righteousness would be our own…
Another way to look at the “fence” analogy is to think of that famous scene at the Brandenburg gate when President Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Some fences don’t keep the wolves out — they keep the slaves in. Those walls need to come down in a hurry.
It’s an interesting way to look at the situation. Do you think you are contained or liberated by the walls of doctrine? If the walls contain you, has it degenerated into nothing more than a “safe prison?”
So as we survey the landscape of the church, I think the walls to reinforce are the ones that repel the “arrows of the evil one.” The fences to tear down are the ones that keep immature believers caged up like veal.
Now, on to figuring out which is which…
Sorry, it’s hard to respond to these things without recognizing that there could be an audience that does not know us, or needs it to be in that type of format. I guess I feel like I’m on Instant Messenger almost when I respond to these things.
I think that this question is really cool, because I come from a pentacostal background. So naturally a lot of my family members are pentacostal/charismatic, and I see their lives and beliefs and know that they are all solid Christians. Yet, some of the people they watch on t.v. or listen to on the radio make me wonder how much they are there (saved), because their teachings aren’t necessarily what most would deem “orthodox.” So it is very hard for me to form views on those people that they partake of in the Christian media. It’s like those people are there it seems, but at the same time their wackiness makes you wonder.
A nice discourse. Especially Hugh. Did you graduate from Cornell or something? 🙂 Dan, you did not answer my question. How exactly does one KNOW Jesus. I have a hard time putting it into words, but its a turn or phrase used often in Christian circles. I can even think of a praise song with the line “Knowing You, Jesus. Knowing You. There is no greater thing”. You said we don’t need to build our confidence in knowing everything, just knowing the ONE who knows everything. HOW?
Sorry, I was busy pondering Eric’s point on infant baptism and whether I could indict a large slice of church history…..
Let me first cite a great example of “bad” knowing. In John 2:23-24, Jesus is at Passover and John records that many people “believed in his name, but Jesus would not entrust Himself to them, for He KNEW all men” [emphasis mine]. Jesus knew that their knowing was not enough. Why, because their believing was a side-show, carnival type believing – while the circus was in town they were first in line. Jesus did not fall prey to emotional attachment devoid of life-change.
However, earlier in the passage, John records that the disciples saw Jesus’ first miracle and “put their faith in Him.” What’s the difference? The disciples had a belief that apprehended the person of Christ and placed the trust of their souls to Christ as the Messiah. They exchanged the hope of a Messiah to come to a Messiah, in the person of Jesus, arrived. To say that they “knew” Jesus would be equal to saying all their hope in this life and all their eternal destiny is now wrapped up in Him.
Similarly, when I “know” Jesus it means that I cling to, hope in, and rely on Jesus. The disciples evidenced this reality by following Christ. The crowds evidenced their belief also, but the evidence of their lives was to crucify our Lord. The fruit of the crowds belief was to apprehend hells message – murder the Messiah! What a tremendous paradox: the people who “believed” in Christ during this Passover would be the ones who would soon cry for Christ’s blood while the ones who really “knew” the Messiah would soon give their lives away for His message.
Now for Eric’s pondering of infant baptism…. Yes, I think it is a good fence.. with gates in close proximity. What do I mean? Infant baptism exists more due to a system of interpretation (Covenant theology) than to Biblical theology. However, there are very godly people who aspouse this belief and I would never want to say they are unspiritual. I would just say they are wrong and invite them to come in and out of the gates in my fence to enjoy fellowship. I would enjoy rich conversation with them as to why my fence exists and encourage them to examine the original design of the land and why they too should ascribe in the same fence. We would have long discussions on a variety of issues and learn much from one another.
Does this mean I am smarter, or wiser, or more godly? No, just right. How can I say this? The baptism of individuals after they have chosen to follow Christ best fits the Biblical account and that’s always a good reason to build a fence.
Dan, thanks for the clarity. By your definition, I would say that I know Christ, in the respect that I trust Him solely to be my Savior for my redemption from my sin. To be precise it would be trusting in Christ from what I know of Him, right? I would lobby that we should attempt to shift the vernacular from “wanting to know Jesus more” to ” wanting to know more of Christ in order to trust Him more”.
Ahhh, the failings of the English language.
This makes me think of Matt 7:21-24. The key phrases being “I never knew you” and “Anyone who listens to my teaching and obeys me is wise.” There’s that idea of obeying the “plural” words of Christ again.
Bridging the two conversations here, I offer the question, “Has the American Church focused so much on the ‘fences’ constructed by Paul that it has lost focus of the teachings of Christ?”
In regard to the American Church and its focus, I think you are definitly right! I was introduced to a study, yet to be published, that is looking at this exact question. The thesis is that in the mid 40’s the church moved from a “Cristocentric identity” to a “Pauline mentality.” Meaning? The church moved from seeing and meditating on the charactr and priorities of Christ to a strict learning of the propositional teachings of Paul. They are certainly not exclusive, but there is a dramatic rise in smart, “right” people living with large doses of hypocrisy/apathy. The fences are straight and kept up through seminars and seminaries making sure everyone has the right doctrine, but the life of Christ is conspicuously missing with the resulting absence of personal passion to see the world impacted through redemptive relationships.
The mega-church movement with its alarming disregard in training people in biblical, orthodox doctrines and its programming disconnect of people (people coming to watch the show and then leave) will not remedy the situation, or potenially even address it. Even if a large church (3000 and up) saw the problem, how would they turn the ship? At that level you must process hundreds of people. Large churches typically are not built to provide mentoring or relational discipleship in small groups due to their programming. At some point getting the program together crowds our the need for life-on-ife development. Without a long term strategy started at a churches inception or, at least, when there were only hundreds involved, it is a herculian challenge. Let’s face it, it’s easier to teach to thousands than make sure those thousands are connected and there are levels of accountability through intentional relationship. Everything our culture is about is defiant to this type of thinking. The enemy does not like the teaching and person of Christ. The enemy tries to create a culture in which the priorities of Christ are ignored or functionally “impossible” to live out due to our schedules or pace in life.
Solution? I will leave my thoughts on this as other weight in…