Friend: What I find interesting in these comments however, is the way Paul's work is often ignored. We literally have a large portion of the NT written to church leaders who managed their churches in bad ways. This is nothing new. But I also believe much of the motivation behind deconstruction is also a wilful dismissal of Scripture people don't like because it doesn't fit within a contextual understanding of modern culture and appetites for what is considered "good". But that's a discussion for another day.
Me: Can't argue with that much except to reframe that same idea on the other foot, so to speak. I think one of the things driving folks away from evangelicalism is the church's willful dismissal of Scripture that doesn't fit its American nationalist and capitalistic (read greed in many cases) and theologically conservative political understanding of modern American culture and appetites for what is considered "good." But, as you say, that's a discussion for another day.
For me, I find it easier to follow and understand the words of Paul best after I focus on having the character of Christ first and foremost. Let him who has ears to hear live the beatitudes and then find their character in the fruit of the Spirit.
Friend: I get that. And it's much better to exemplify the character of Christ when you are in community with people of all opinions, political persuasions, churched and unchurched alike. I teach Sunday School, I am reformed, and I am an inerrantist. But I also know my job is to love and serve people, and it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict people of sin. Not mine. I do not want to be held accountable to that. I'm am unqualified for that work, and happy to not have that burden put upon me.
Me: Sadly, what I see in a lot (maybe most in my experience) is a homogenous opinion.
And then further down in the discussion...
Me: I haven't deconstructed away from my faith, just away from a certain understanding and practice of it. The biggest issue with that is that most churches in my area aren't welcoming to people who don't follow that particular understanding, and believe them tantamount to heretics if their search through Scripture leads them toward a more Progressive understanding of faith.
Friend: At what point are going to have a transparent discussion where "particular understandings" begin to stand in opposition to orthodoxy? Forget about disagreements on morality for a moment... we're talking about severe disagreements re: affirmation of the virgin birth, understanding of what is sin, effectiveness and experience of atonement, and the standard from which this is derived in Scripture. Because the minute you begin to accept that some Scripture is wrong or "in error" you've begun to lean on something outside of Scripture to become the benchmark of truth, either willingly or unwillingly. The essential idea of "progression" is change... and what is never answered is, in regards to Christianity, to the progressive, what is changing? Is it God? Is that the world is changing and the church needs to change along with it? I would love an explanation that fits within orthodoxy, rather than in direct opposition to it? Or maybe the idea of orthodoxy itself and the rejection of it is the catalyst to deconstruction? And if that's the case, then that just sounds like chaos to me... which is more a declaration of my own lack of imagination in this regard.
Me: I prefer the term "mystery" to "chaos." 😉
And there are times when orthodoxy itself is locked into erroneous understandings of the scripture it looks to. Salem witch trials. Defending slavery. The time of the reformers who needed to be an affront to their contemporary orthodoxy in order to explore the mystery that would lead them to a more accurate/better/spirit-filled (choose your adjective) understanding and create a new orthodoxy.
When orthodoxy becomes locked in stone and cannot be challenged, it can become its own type of prison to the work of the Spirit. Who's to say the orthodoxy of Luther and Calvin is the same as the orthodoxy of the modern American church? There are certainly differences where they would be considered wrong for their more God-focused ideas on the irrevocable calling or unlosable salvation. Does that make modern churches that don't hold those tenets unorthodox or does that make the reformers unorthodox? Both look to Scripture to build their theology. Or that the orthodoxy espoused by Sproul and Ravi Zacharias are going to be the end-all, be-all orthodoxy of 100 years from now? Lots of things have changed the way we interpret Scripture, from culture to science to politics (English kings, most notoriously), and we will continue to do so.
I submit that one can hold Scripture up to scrutiny and being "God-breathed" but not be bound to current or even older or newer interpretations of it based on the work of the Spirit and the increasing knowledge we attain through science and life.
No comments:
Post a Comment