Who Are We Really Defending?
Reading Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker at the age of 18 left quite an impact on me. It was repulsive to read a book that blasphemed God on every page. Yet because his atheistic beliefs were (and are still) so prominent, I believed it important to understand his arguments. And as a result, I began studying Scripture more diligently in order to combat his false teachings.
The radical teachings of Richard Dawkins are not entirely new, nor is false teaching limited to atheists. Even among evangelical Christians, theological disagreements are prominent. Jude urges believers to contend for the faith—and certainly we should (Jude 3). Yet how we contend for the faith is as important as contending for it in the first place. This essay will address why motive and method are two key factors in contending for the faith.
Apologetics: Motive and Method in Contending with Unbelievers
Most Christians, if they are honest, will admit that they at some point have salivated at the opportunity to take a course or read a book that promises to crush the arguments of those who reject Christianity. From the church fathers to Aquinas, and from William Paley to the present day, believers have always found it helpful to use reason and proofs for God’s existence. But human reason can only take us so far. God will not fit into a test tube, nor does He always play by the rules established by our rationality. Therefore, there always comes a point where reason must end and faith must begin [1], despite the fact that some view faith as foolish in our scientific age. Yet it is the foolishness of faith, combined with personal pride, which often causes us to have a vindictive approach to apologetics.
Imagine that an atheist approaches you and says, “Look at all of the evil in the world. God does not exist, and if he by chance does exist, he certainly is not a good god. You Christians are so foolish to believe in such childish things.” Our natural response is often not one of humility that uses apologetics in hopes that this person will repent and believe. Instead, our natural response is to use apologetic tools to prove that we are not foolish, rather than show that Jesus is the Son of God. Often apologetics is used to contend for our reputation rather than the Gospel.
Allowing our apologetics to be Gospel-oriented does not mean we should not contend for the truth with unbelievers. However, our contention for the good news should be aimed toward conversion rather than our meager public reputation. It is not surprising that many do not believe the Gospel. After all, the ruler of this world has blinded their eyes (2 Cor. 4:4). It takes the power and work of the Holy Spirit to convince a man that the cosmic King died in order to save His helpless subjects. For this reason, apologetics should always be used as a tool to further explain the good news, not a weapon used to crush our opponents and vindicate us. Defending the faith is not primarily about me crushing the Dawkinses of the world; it is about the good news of Christ and Him crucified.
Theological Debate: Motive and Method in Contending with Believers
Not only do we contend for the faith before unbelievers, but before believers too. Yet, all too often, believers often disagree about things of far lesser value. It would be easy to confuse some church business meetings for a mixed martial arts match. The same can be said of online blogs. Pick the average Christian blog of your choice, look through the comments section, and you will likely find that healthy debate is scarce and cold-hearted, bitter remarks rampant. Christians must learn to exhibit what Josh Harris calls “humble orthodoxy” [2].
Contending in the Local Church Context: We all have particular expectations about what Christianity ought to look like, or how worship ought to be structured. Many of these presuppositions may just be cultural or preferential rather than theological mandates [3]. And often it is appropriate to continue cultural norms. But a problem arises when we equate cultural preferences with doctrine. We can become so enchanted with our view that it seems to become our identity—or even our idol. To attack our particular brand of theology is to attack our identity. We can usually discuss and negotiate on differing views and opinions about ecclesiology, but we often protect our identity with our very lives.
Defending our identity is much different than contending for the Gospel. We shouldn’t confuse the two. Further, we must contend for the Gospel with humility, and not for our own self-vindication. If we truly believe the Gospel, it will show in how we contend for it. Harris states, “Knowledge about God that doesn’t translate into exalting Him in our words, thoughts and actions will soon become self-exaltation” [4]. Theology is of utmost importance, but orthodoxy (right belief) is irrelevant without orthopraxy (right practice). For instance, it will do you no good to affirm the Virgin Birth while hating your brother (1 Jn. 2:9, 11; 3:15; 4:20). It is not enough to merely believe that which is right; we must also do that which is right (Jas. 2:17); and this is evident, not only by our use of apologetics, but also in how we engage our brothers and sisters in Christ amidst disagreement.
Contending in the Denominational Context: Vindictive Christianity does not affect the local church only, but entire denominations too. The beauty of denominations is that large groups of churches can agree on a particular confession of Scripture, while still possessing diversity of opinion on other peripheral issues. This allows them to accomplish collectively what individual churches cannot accomplish individually. Unfortunately, divisive, vindictive Christianity cripples many denominations. This usually occurs when an individual or group treats a peripheral issue as if it were the difference between heaven and hell. We must contend for the Gospel, but not our reputation or identity, especially when those have become more defined by our preferences than Scripture.
Does this mean that Christians should totally avoid disagreement? Of course not. Does it mean that heresy be allowed to run rampant in our church or denomination? Of course not. Christians should discuss, debate, and even disagree. But we do this as brothers rather than enemies. There is room within evangelicalism, and even denominations, for different applications of Scripture. We do not have to be dispassionate or act as if we do not have an opinion, but we must realize that it is not really about us. Denominations exist to serve Christ, His Church, and ultimately the world—not self-centered, vindictive Christians. The Gospel must be the focus of any successful evangelical denomination.
Self-Forgetfulness: The Determining Factor
This may seem spineless and weak to some. But the life of Christ will cure us of our desire to be vindictive under the guise of orthodoxy. When the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Mt. 4; Lk. 4), each temptation called Christ to vindicate Himself in a premature way apart from the will of God. Jesus was tempted to feed Himself, but God had not yet provided Him food. He was tempted to prove that He was the Beloved Son by throwing Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple and forcing God’s hand to save Him (Mt. 4:7; 3:17; 17:5; Mk.1:11; 9:7; Lk. 3:22). Christ was tempted also to accept all of the power of the world without first facing the curse of the cross (Heb. 10:12, 13). Jesus could have done every one of these things, but He chose not to vindicate Himself in the face of evil.
Why did Jesus refuse to prove Himself? He endured ridicule and temptation because He knew that the Father would justify Him in due time. Christ knew He would eventually taste the true bread of the kingdom. He would not be saved from thrusting Himself from the pinnacle of a building, but He would be vindicated by being raised from the dead (Acts 2:24). He would not attempt to take the power of the world’s kingdoms prematurely because He knew that the Father would eventually make His enemies His footstool (Ps.110:1; Heb. 10:12-13) .
When ridiculed, a Christian should look to the Savior who did not vindicate Himself though He could have. Rather, He prayed that revilers would be forgiven of their foolish mockery (Lk. 23:34). We all once were foolish revilers of Christ, but we “have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). When tempted to vindicate ourselves, or our identity against a fellow believer who disagrees with our theological opinions, we must remember that the truth is not about us. The Gospel transcends our cultural distinctives, and it is much greater than our opinions. We must stand firm on the Gospel-essentials, contend for the faith, and check our vindictive spirits at the door.
_______________________________________
[1] Thomas Aquinas puts this in simple terms by saying, “There are, therefore, some points of intelligibility in God, accessible to human reason, and other points that altogether transcend the power of human reason” (St. Thomas Aquinas, “Christian Ethereal Library,” Christian Ethereal Library, 07 09, 2000, 33; available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.html, accessed on June 30, 2011).
[2] In chapter 11 of his book Dug Down Deep, Josh Harris explains that humble orthodoxy occus when a Christian is orthodox in his or her beliefs, but is not prideful or even vindictive about it. He writes: “The solution to arrogant orthodoxy is not less orthodoxy; it’s more. If we truly know and embrace orthodoxy, it should humble us. When we know the truth about God—his power, his greatness, his holiness, his mercy—it doesn’t leave us boasting; it leaves us amazed. It doesn’t lead to a preoccupation with being right but to amazement that we have been rescued” (Dug Down Deep, 225)” [Joshua Harris, Dug Down Deep: Unearthing What I Believe and Why It Matters, (Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2010), 217].
[3] This is certainly not an attempt to do away with the regulative principle. We must not just structure worship after our own personal style or preference. But there is a possibility that different churches will have different cultural distinctives.
[4] This quote is taken from Josh Harris’s lecture on humble orthodoxy at the 2011 Gospel Coalition Conference. The lecture can be accessed in the podcasts section of iTunes.
Recent Comments