Troublemaker, divisive, being contentious, sowing seeds of discord, hard to get along with, tearing up the church, just to name a few of the labels often slapped on one who disagrees with another on certain doctrinal teaching. Heaven forbid if you disagree with church leaders on issues concerning theology and doctrine . I'm not talking about primary issues such as the gospel, the Deity of Christ or the Trinity. No, I am talking about disagreeing with someone on secondary issues. It seems that most when they disagree on a doctrinal issue just keep it to themselves and would not rather discuss and would think it best that you did the same. After all we don't need any disunity, we just need to trust our leaders. To that I also say Amen!! Yes we do need unity among the brethren especially in the context of our local church. To this the bible is clear. But, not unity that is devoid of meaningful discussion on doctrine and theology and yes even disagreement on some issues. Yes we need to defend/proclaim the truth in love. However, we should never think that our laziness, apathy and willful ignorance of theological issues is actually leading us to preserve the bond of unity either. Some try to parade this idea as some type of christian virtue. I think we need to adapt the mindset of Luther here, "Unity wherever possible, but the truth at all costs".
As I read some contemporary Reformed theologians I see them write about something dubbed "mission creep". Micheal Horton defines:, we are giving up our focus on the mission God has given us, becoming distracted by other activities, and losing our clear and biblically founded grasp on the truths which God has given us with regards to the gospel commission (Matthew 28:18-20).
I would agree with Horton. But, I think we are also losing in another area as well. The theology of Polemics
The definition of Polemics could be summed as: A controversy or argument, especially one that is a refutation of or an attack upon a specified opinion, doctrine, or the like. ...The art or practice of argumentation or controversy...The practice of theological controversy to refute errors of doctrine.
Something else besides "mission creep" is slithering into our christian mindset almost undetected ". The disdain for polemics. It sounds good as it cries "UNITY, UNITY, JUST THE GOSPEL". But it has a subtle whisper of ecumenism. Of course not the blatant kind of ecumenism, like the "Catholics and Evangelicals together" strain. No, more like the Rodney King kind: If we got the right Gospel does theology and doctrine really matter? We shouldn't have so stringent convictions on theological issues after all they are only secondary issues, right? Can't we all just get along?
Is the idea that we should just present the gospel and never oppose or refute what one thinks is error biblical? The Christian church and the Reformation were birthed out of doctrinal debate. The Reformers wrote extensive treatises or Polemics to refute certain doctrinal aberrations. History shows that one of Calvin's first writings was a polemic against soul sleep. What would the church look like today had not Athanasius wrote and argued against the Arians? What about Paul as he argued against the Gnostics and legalists? Paul was a polemicist.
John MacArthur writes in his book "The Truth War".
Did I say "argument"? Many people have the false idea that Christians should never argue about anything. We're not supposed to engage in polemics. I hear this frequently: "Why don't you just state the truth in positive terms and ignore the views you disagree with? Why not just steer clear of controversy, forget the negatives, and present everything affirmatively?" That ethos is why it is no longer permissible to deal with biblical issues in a straightforward and uncompromising fashion. Those who dare to take an unpopular stand, declare truth in a definitive way , or worst of all, express disagreement with someone else's teaching, will inevitably be marked as troublesome. Compromise has become a virtue while devotion to truth has become offensive. Martin Lloyd Jones called the modern distrust of polemics "very loose and very false and very flabby thinking...the attitude of many seems to be, we do not want these arguments. Give us the simple message, the simple gospel. Give it to us positively, and do not bother about other views". He responded to those sentiments: "It is important that we should realize that if we speak like that we are denying the scriptures. The scriptures are full of arguments and polemics."
He went on (Lloyd Jones)
"Disapproval of polemics in the Christian church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into Evangelical circles also, and many say that we must not be too precise about these things. ...If you hold that view you are criticizing the apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the scriptures. The scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.
Then Lloyd Jones added this helpful qualifier:
Let us be clear about what we mean. This is not an argument for the sake of argument; this is not a manifestation of an argumentative spirit; this is not just indulging ones prejudices. The scriptures do not approve of that, and furthermore the scriptures are very concerned about the spirit in which one engages in discussion. No man should like argument for the sake of argument. We should always regret the necessity; but though we regret and bemoan it, when we feel that a vital matter is as stake we must engage in argument. We must earnestly contend for the truth, and we are called upon to do that by the New Testament.
The lack or distaste of polemics in a Christians life is why there is such lack of discernment in the church today. In looking at this Family integrated church issue, I was struck not only by the polemics on both sides of this issue, but the spirit in which some argued their case, for and against this subject. Not all of course. Specifically the polemics by Sam Waldron, who argues against this movement. He was not afraid to voice his opinion, but with much grace and was willing to admit learning somethings himself. The theology of polemics rightly applied.
By Nolan Flowers
No comments:
Post a Comment