Parochialism Paralyzes the Process of Learning

Here is a good article I read a while back by Bob Dewayy. First it may be helpful define  the term used:

Parochialism means being provincial, being narrow in scope, or considering only small sections of an issue.

 The Need to Search the Scriptures

Parochialism takes the good things we have discussed about systems and systematic thinking, and institutionalizes them into a tight, all encompassing structure that is deemed to be the only true way of knowing and serving God. In my opinion Roman Catholicism is like this. The teaching of Rome has developed beyond the Scriptures to institutionalize not only certain truths, such as the trinity, but many errors. Traditions of the Roman church stand as authoritative to those who are members, even if these traditions are far removed from the Scriptures. The sad result is that for millions of Catholics all around the world, what the Scriptures say about anything in particular is of little interest. The point is that systems can stifle searching the Scriptures if they are wrongly held.

How Parochialism Paralyzes the Process of Learning

Parochialism will always be attractive to many people because of its utter simplicity. Rather than the painful process of making many decisions about all manner of issues of belief and behavior, they merely make one decision: which group to join. The decision is that everything about this group is what they are going to hold to, and they shall just trust that it is right. If someone questions the beliefs of people who approach their faith this way, they merely send them to the church authorities, or consult the creeds. This issue is not about being denominational versus non-denominational. Some of the most extreme examples of parochialism I have seen have been in small, non-denominational groups. One person has created his own system of answers for everything and dictates it all to the flock. Nonconformity on any point is not tolerated.

The process of learning is paralyzed when we have made one decision to join and thereafter refuse to interact seriously with dissenting views. I love studying theology and have learned much by going into a rigorous academic environment where many do not share my views and interacting with scholarly Bible believing teachers who may hold different views on various matters. I remember meeting another man a few years ago in a seminary class on theology and agreeing with him on most doctrines. The class was examining a whole spectrum of theological perspectives - some far afield from ours - interacting with them, critiquing them, and doing serious research on various topics. My friend was disappointed because he wanted a class taught only from our own perspective that only reinforced our systematic theology. I felt just the opposite. I love going toe-to-toe with capable people who see things from a different perspective, point out the flaws in my arguments, and bring Scriptures to bear that I may have not considered. I really do not get that much from only being spoon-fed what I already believe, and that in a parochial setting.

There is, I believe, an anti-scholastic bias in much of American Evangelicalism which contributes to parochialism. The idea is that someone figured out all this "theology stuff" long ago, so why keep rehashing it? This bias is contributing to the therapeutic approach that is so common. One decision is made - which group to join - that settles all matters theological. Now life is about getting one's needs met. Ironically, ecumenism and parochialism have found a way to exist nicely in our post-modern culture, though they are technically polar opposites. The way they coexist is that everyone is given the right to choose a group to join, and that settles the truth issues. We agree that everyone's tradition is correct for them. Once that is settled, theological disputes are moot. Thus, we can privately be as narrow and parochial as we desire, as long as publicly we do not try to correct anyone else. This is the trend not only in theology, but modern politics. What is "true" just is not that interesting to many people.

Listening to Dissenting Views

Another paralyzing aspect of parochialism is that it engenders an attitude that refuses to consider dissenting views. This is a common practice among those of us who are conservative in our approach to the Bible and theology. I think it explains some of the letters I get from readers. The fact that people feel they must break off all further dialogue with me because they disagree with me on one point saddens me. One issue that regularly elicits this response is the issue of God's sovereignty in salvation or man's free will. It is understandable that this causes consternation because how we understand this influences everything we read in the Bible. I have been on both sides of this issue. For sixteen years of my Christian life, I saw free will as the key to understanding the problem of evil, salvation, and redemption history. A belief like this one - that influences all of our other beliefs in some way - is not easily changed. Then, in 1986, I agreed to teach verse by verse through Romans, carefully considering every passage. It took three years. By the end of the process, my commitment to free will, as I previously understood it, had been dashed on the rocks of God's sovereignty. Now I am on the other side of the issue.

I share this not to delve into this particular issue, but to discuss how we interact with dissenting views. To this day, some of my oldest friends still disagree with me on this subject. People I hold in high regard cannot embrace the idea that God chose certain individuals from before the foundation of the world. It was interesting that a couple of years ago I was asked to debate an Arminian at an apologetics meeting. I never back away from the chance for a good, irenic debate, so I agreed. The other man agreed with me on total depravity and the perseverance of the saints, leaving only three points to debate. The rest boils down to whether God chose us out of His own gracious purposes or whether He foresaw that we would choose Him. Either the eternal purposes of God or the choices of men in history determine who the elect are.

The interesting thing about the debate was that most of the people there were on my side, with the exception of a number of people from our own congregation! That did not make me feel bad at all. People whom I consider my best friends do not agree with me on this point. What is important is that we keep searching the Scriptures together, prayerfully, seeking to know the way of the Lord more perfectly. I would get no joy out of demanding that everyone agree with me because I am the pastor. What we agreed upon long ago was that we would teach the whole counsel of God and study the Bible together, verse by verse. This we do. I teach the universal call passages just as passionately as the ones on election. If they are in the Bible, we must take them seriously.

CONCLUSION

This brings us back to the Thessalonians and the Bereans. One group refused to even listen to evidence, they just wanted those who disagreed to be banished from their city. The other searched the Scriptures. The comfort that was gained by Thessalonian Jews in silencing the message came at a high price, the price of coming to the knowledge of the truth. The Bereans had a more difficult task, they had to study daily. Not only that, what they were studying upset their whole system of belief concerning the person and work of Messiah. But they gained the knowledge of the truth and eternal life in Christ.

Being Bereans does not mean that we never have a solid, systematic understanding of God's truth as revealed in His Word. It means that we take on the role of life-long students. The following is the essence of what I believe to be a God honoring approach that will help us be like the Bereans while still holding onto a systematic understanding of the truths of God's Word.

• Hold firmly to, and contend for, the faith once for delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3);
• Always search the Scriptures on every matter;
• Do not assume you are right on every point without allowing serious challenges;
• Read the best works of those who disagree and take their arguments seriously;
• Study the Bible, verse by verse, Old and New Testaments throughout your lifetime;
• Realize that we all have a systematic theology, but never let a system stifle learning and study;

With this approach we shall avoid the extremes of ecumenism and parochialism. We will become life long disciples, growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.

Answers to the question, “Of what use is the moral Law…,”

Here is a snippet of an article posted by Nicholas  Batzig at feedingonchrist.com. The article is about the the third use of the law and the finished work of Christ.

The Third Use in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms

Q. 95-97 of the Larger Catechism is likely the best place to start with regard to the question to the Law and its uses as described in the Westminster Standards. As they begin to provide answers to the question, “Of what use is the moral Law…,” the Divines unfold their understanding of the uses in relation to various groups. Accordingly, the Law is useful to all men. This is some sense, a summary statement of the following two catechism questions. There is a general use of the Law that affects all men, whether unregenerate or regenerate. WLC 95 puts it in the following way:

“The moral law is of use to all men, to:

1) inform them of the holy nature and will of God,

2) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;

3) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,

4) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

The Law is fundamentally pedagogical. It teaches men that God is holy, that they are not, and that they need Christ.

In question 96, the Divines ask, “What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?” The answer they give sounds very much like the second part of the previous question. They wrote, “the moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.” The only addition to the first use–which was for “all men”–is that there is a condemnatory use of the Law for unrepentant unbelievers. If men will not turn to Christ out of a sense of their sin and need for salvation in Him, then the Law will serve the purpose of being the condemning standard on Judgment Day.

Finally (and most important to this study) in question 97 the Divines ask the question, “What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?” Here, I think, is the place where so much confusion occurs. Many modern Reformed theologians, might answer this question (if worded a bit differently), by saying, “The moral law is of special use to the regenerate to be a rule of life to them.” This is certainly true in one very qualified sense, but it is not the qualified and nuanced answer that the Divines give. They first preface it and then give a three layered answer to the question:

(1) Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them:

(2) How much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and

(3) thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

Note that the Puritans were insistant that our justification by faith alone in Christ alone is the fundamental first step in understanding the role of the moral Law in the life of the believer. They do not lay aside the implications of that justification. Rather, they root the third use of the Law firmly in the justification we have in Christ. To fail to make this first, fundamental step is to walk into the dangerous landmine-field of legal sanctification. If we forget that we are justified in Christ–and that we are neither justified nor condemned by the Law–then we will fail to live in the freedom and gratitude that we have in Christ. It is that freedom and gratitude that will enable us to run the course of God’s commandments.

Secondly the Puritans noted that the moral Law is useful in the life of the regenerate to remind them of the ongoing need they have for the finished work of Christ. It is not only the unbeliever than needs to know that Christ has fulfilled the Law for us and has taken the curse of it “in our place and for our good.” Believers continue to need this to be pressed into their minds and hearts. The reason is simple. The believer needs the Gospel too because the believer will continue to sin. We never grow in godliness so much that we do not constantly need that supporting grace of Christ. The writers of the Heidelberg and the Westminster Standards will certainly move the believer on to see their need for growth in godliness, but not without reminding them of this absolutely fundamental foundation. In fact, in WCF 19.6 the Divines explained that the moral law was useful to the regenerate in that “it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.” This, it seems to me is the one emphasis that is often left out by those who are zealous to teach the third use of the Law. It is, however, only part of the third use.

The final layer of the Divine’s answer concerning the third use of the Law (WLC Q. 97) is what moves us on from our need for Christ to the necessary response to the grace of Christ in our lives. The Divines explain that the moral law is useful to believers in that it “ provoke[s] them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” Here an exceedingly important nuance must be observed. The first thing introduced in the moral obligations of the Law in the life of the believer is not the sheer obligatory character, rather it is the heart motivation for obedience. The language of “thankfulness” is employed. It is not out of “servile fear” that the believer presses on in obedience. Elsewhere in the Confession, the Divines make it clear that “The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind (WCF 20.1).” It is the “thankfulness,” and “child-like love” that are the proper motivations for the believer to obey God.

This is, incidentally, the same thing being spoken of in the Belgic Confession when they contrast the motives of obedience produced by justification with the improper motives to obedience in unbelievers. Article 23 notes that the justification we have through the finished work of Christ “is enough to cover all our sins and to make us confident, freeing the conscience from the fear, dread, and terror of God’s approach…” Article 24 declares that “far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned.” The writers of the Heidelberg sweetly comply with this in Q. 86 when they answer the question, “Since then we are delivered from our misery, merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?” with the answer, “Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit, after his own image; that so we may testify, by the whole of our conduct, our gratitude to God for his blessings, and that he may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith, by the fruits thereof; and that, by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.” Someone may at this point object and say, “But doesn’t the Bible everywhere teach us that we are fear God and keep His commandments?” To this I would direct the reader to John Bunyan’s fine work, A Treatise on the Fear of God. It will suffice to say that godly fear is not a fear of God’s terror and wrath that causes a man or woman to seek to obey Him out of fear of going to Hell. Otherwise, the benefits of justification are made void. As John notes in his first epistle, “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:17-19).”

The final part of WLC 97 most certainly teaches that believers may not lay aside the moral obligations of the Law of God; rather, out of gratitude for what Christ has accomplished for them they are to “express the same [i.e. their thankfulness for redemption] in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” The 10 commandments form the sphere of our sanctification. They are the railroad tracts upon which the Spirit of God moves the believer along. They are the guiding pathway of the righteous. They are, in the words of the promise of the New Covenant spoken by Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 10:16), “written on the heart” of believers. Far from Christ’s finished work giving permission to lay aside the commandments, Jesus renews His people so that they grow in obedience to them throughout their Christian life.

The authors of the Heidelberg Catechism give similar answers about the Law and its use in the life of the believer as that of WLC 97. For the sake of this study we will only consider Heidelberg Q. 114-115. In Heidelberg 114 the question is asked, “But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?” It is clear that the writers are seeking to guard against a unbiblical teaching of perfectionism. Having just taught that the Law demands absolute perfect obedience, someone might ask then if it is possible for the redeemed to attain to that perfection. The answer they give is extremely straightforward. They say, “No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.” It is a two part answer that first guards against the abuse of some who might suggest that the practical holiness that believers attain to in this life is in perfect or nearly perfect. However, the writers are also eager not to say that it then doesn’t matter whether we pursue practical godliness in our lives. The first part of the answer is a reflection on what Paul teaches in Romans 7 and the second what he teaches in Romans 8.

The writers of the Heidelberg Catechism put it so nicely when they answer the question, “Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?” (Q. 115), with these words: “that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ.” The authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, in the same way as the writers of the WLC, are making the observation that we as believers need to recognize our sinfulness and trust in Christ and His finished work “all our lifetime.”

The Third Use of the Law and the Foundation of Christ’s Saving Work

The Divines begin to explain what Calvin had denominated the third use of the Law by emphasizing that “believers be not under the moral Law as a Covenant of Works so that they are neither justified nor condemned by it.” The Divines consider this to be the necessary first step in treating the usefulness of the Law in the life of the believer. Because even the best Christian discovers “sin that so easily besets them,” and often feels the weight of that sin and the accusatory voice of the evil one, they need to be reminded that the relationship which we sustain with God is not one built upon our performance to the Law of God. We are “neither justified, nor condemned by it.”

 While it is helpful to know the historical roots of these distinctions, it is important to note how seldom modern proponents of the “third use of the Law” will approach their defining of the third use in the manner in which the authors of Reformed Confessions and Catechism expositions of them (This is somewhat ironic, since those who are most zealous to defend the role of the Law of God in the life of the believer also often see themselves as gatekeepers of the Reformed Confessions). The Divines so carefully define the relationship of the moral Law to believer in light of the finished work of Christ in their defense of the third use. There is an undeniable redemptive foundation laid in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms so often overlooked or ignored; and yet, it is precisely this foundation that is necessary for sustaining the obligatory aspects ofthe third use of the Law.

The moral Law demands perfect and continual obedience. Even after the fall, God demands perfect obedience. As was the case prior to the fall, so after the fall, the demand for perfect and continual obedience is coupled with the promise of “life upon the fulfilling, and threatening [of] death upon the breach of it” (WCF 19.1). The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith expressly state this when they wrote: “ This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness…” Wherever the Law is found (whether it be in the Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden or the promulgation of it to the Covenant people at Sinai) it demands absolute obedience. The Divines expressly teach this as a principle fundamental to the nature of the Law of God–and the relationship between the moral Law and the all mankind. Of course, no fallen man can keep even one precept of the Law, let alone keep the whole of the Law of God perfectly and perpetually. But that does not change the fact that God “directs and binds everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.”

Jesus Christ, the second Adam and true Israel, fulfills the Law perfectly for His people, takes their curse in His death on the cross, and receives the blessing of life for them by His own merit. This is why the Scriptures say that He was “born under the Law.” That is why the Redeemer was an Israelite. This is why He became our “flesh and blood” brother. He took on a human nature, and put Himself in our precise relationship, to redeem us from the curse of the law. This is one eternally important reason why Israel received the Law in the Mosaic Covenant, with the associated typological promise of blessing and cursing. Christ, the antitype of Israel, takes the antitypical curse for the Covenant people and fulfills the righteous requirement of the Law to give them the antitypical (eternal) blessings by faith in Him.

The Divines, make it clear that no man or woman–as physically descending from Adam by ordinary generation–can fulfill the Law of God for their justification. Even when they enter in on the discussion of the role of the moral Law in the life of the believer, the Divines note that “though the regenerate be delivered from the moral Law as a Covenant of Works,” and that it continues to show believers “how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good.” When the Law is divested of the fulfillment it finds in the finished work of Christ it becomes an unbearable burden. This is not only the case for the unbeliever who labors under the weight of unforgiven sins. In the believers’ life the law can function in a condemnatory manner if it is striped out of its redemptive-historical setting. If we left it there, however, we would surely be falling into the realm of an accidental antinomianism. We must always press on in obedience to the commandments of the Christ who redeemed and justified us. We can never rest in a lifestyle of sin and rebellion. We, out of gratitude and child-like love, pursue holiness in the fear of God. Our Lord Jesus did not redeem us to leave us in disobedience. We were purchased with His blood that we might be “zealous for good works.” May we always keep these two parts of God grace before us. Christ frees us from sins guilt and power. We receive both in the Gospel, both by faith, and both by grace

Johnathan Edwards: The Danger of Self-righteousness in Believers

And let particular persons strictly examine themselves whether they hadn’t been lifted up with their particular experiences. I think, according to what observations I have made—as I have had [more] opportunity of very extensive observation than any other person in the town—that is has been a pretty prevailing error in the town, that persons are not sufficiently sensible of the danger of self-righteousness after conversion. They seem to be sensible that persons are in danger of it before they are converted, but they think that when a man is converted, he is brought off wholly from his own righteousness, just as if there was no danger of any workings of self-righteousness afterwards.

But this is from a great mistake of what is intended by a man’s being brought wholly off from his own righteousness when he is converted. ‘Tis not meant that a self-righteous principle is wholly done away, that there is no remains of such a disposition in the heart. There is as much of the remains of that as there is of any other corruption of the heart.

So a man is brought, when converted, wholly to renounce all his sins as well as to renounce all his own righteousness. But that don’t argue that he is wholly freed from all remains of sin. So no more is he wholly freed from remains of self-righteousness. There is a fountain of it left. There is an exceeding disposition in men, as long as they live, to make a righteousness of what is in themselves, and an exceeding disposition in men to make a righteousness of spiritual experiences, as well as other things;…a convert is apt to be exalted with high thoughts of his own eminency in grace.