My counselor told me I was an "odd duck." I didn't know what he meant, so he went on to elaborate: "you have a strong drive to investigate the truth and you feel bound to follow wherever it leads." I didn't think that was such an odd thing, but maybe he was right.
I had started graduate school, some years previously, with the naive assumption that this was the point of academic life. But one experience was especially illuminating: I was listening to another student arguing with the professor in an ethics class, when it suddenly dawned on him that the professor was probably right. He admitted this, but then he went on angrily, "you could ruin my life with that argument; people from Germany sent me here to study, and if I go back and say those kinds of things, my career will be over!" He was persuaded, but he wasn't willing to admit that in public; doing so would ruin his academic career.
One would expect that following the truth wherever it leads should be a characteristic of those who belong to the One who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," Who told a group of would-be followers, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:31-32). Stanley Hauerwas makes a great observation about this: "I slowly learned... that to be a Christian meant that you could never protect yourself from the truth" (Hannah's Child, p.11). By definition, a Christian should be someone who cares deeply about and is willing to follow the truth, even if it leads in an unexpected (and maybe unwelcome) direction.
The problem is that openness to the truth can be very costly. One missionary I knew told me he was worried that if he ever moved to a different region and had to be examined by a new presbytery, his ordination would be in danger. He was still comfortably within the Reformed tradition, but on the mission field he had seen and experienced things that broadened his outlook in ways that some presbyteries would find unacceptable. Not heretical, but outside the accepted norms of that group.
Denominational identity tends to degenerate into tribalism; the main concern, all too often, is "how does this fit the identity of our group," rather than "is it true?" As I was working toward ordination in my former denomination, there was a group of leaders obsessed with denominational identity. They were worried, with so many new people coming in, that they would lose what was distinctive about their movement. So for them, the most pressing question was always, "is this person one of us?"
I'm not suggesting that we lay caution aside and be open to everything that comes along. There are plenty of errors out there that will harm us, and we need to be aware and attentive; but some of the strategies we use to protect ourselves from error can also shield us from the truth. The question is, how do we guard against error without protecting ourselves from those areas of the truth that stretch and challenge us?
It doesn't help to say we're only going to believe the Bible, because heretics and extremists also appeal to Scripture. The problem with appealing to Scripture alone is that it was never intended to stand alone. Paul, in 1 Timothy, calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth (3:15)." It's Scripture, as it's been understood by the Church throughout the centuries, that protects us from error. We commit ourselves unconditionally to what the historic Church has understood as orthodoxy, or "right teaching."
The early creeds, as authoritative statements of orthodox faith, are a good place to begin. One popular speaker I've often heard is fond of disparaging the early ecumenical councils, saying "do you really think they got it all figured out?" But they didn't claim to have it all figured out; they were setting parameters, saying "within this circle is the orthodox teaching of the Church, and outside is heresy." Why? Because if Christ is not fully God He cannot save us from our sins, and if He is not fully man He cannot stand in our place. The ecumenical creeds were written to protect the gospel from errors that would undermine our salvation.
"But isn't this Catholic teaching?" someone might respond. "I thought for Protestants the Bible was the only source of authority." It's certainly true that many contemporary American Evangelicals say this sort of thing, but listen to these words from Charles Hodge, the great 19th Century Princeton theologian (whom no one would describe as a closet Catholic): "Protestants, in rejecting the doctrine of tradition, and in asserting that the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures... is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, do not reject the authority of the Church as a teacher. They do not isolate themselves from the great company of the faithful in all ages, and set up a new faith. They hold that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead his people into the knowledge of the truth; that the Spirit does dwell as teacher in all the children of God, and that those who are born of God are thus led to the knowledge and belief of the truth.... Any doctrine, therefore, which can be proved to be a part of the faith (not of the external and visible Church, but) of the true children of God in all ages of the world, must be true. It is to be received not because it is thus universally believed, but because its being universally believed by true Christians is a proof that it is taught by the Spirit both in his Word and in the hearts of his people. This is a sound principle recognized by all Protestants. This universal faith of the Church is not to be sought so much in the decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as in the formulas of devotion which have prevailed among the people.... From the faith of God's people no man can separate himself without forfeiting the communion of saints, and placing himself outside the pale of true believers" (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 249-50).
As David Hall said recently in his blog, "Heart for God": "The symbiosis of authority found in Scripture and the historical continuity of the Church is necessary for assessing current issues and discerning 'progress.' Someone who has no fixed points to guide him and no goal cannot make any progress, but at best just wanders around." Christian orthodoxy (unlike denominationally specific teachings) is not constricting; it opens us to a large world where our minds are free to explore. We needn't be afraid to face the fulness of truth that comes to us in the historic Church. We are safe, within the boundaries of orthodoxy, to examine the shortcomings of our own particular group and to be enriched by the largeness of the Church throughout the centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment