I have come to a point in my journey that I believe theology does not really matter in the grand scheme of things. Okay, that's not really true; theology does matter, just not in the way that most Christians in the American church seem to think. My greatest argument comes from how our Master interacted with others: Jesus' primary mission was not to change people's theology, it was to seek and to save the lost; however, along the way it became essential for Jesus to correct bad theology in order to fulfill his ultimate purpose, but it was never the end that he sought to reach. The end was to see transformation, and the means to that end was always love.
What does Jesus have to say?
The best way to understand this concept is to take a look at the life of Jesus. When did Jesus set out to actually try and "correct" theology? What constitutes as dangerous theology? And finally, when is it important in the life of a believer to confront other believers about theology that could be considered dangerous?
During the time Jesus walked the earth, there were few instances where anything other than kindness or tenderness was demonstrated. There were, however, a few examples of the righteous anger of Jesus. Matthew 23 records one such instance. This passage is often labeled "Seven woes to the Scribes and Pharisees." Matthew 23 begins with Jesus' acknowledgment of the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees. He tells the people to "practice and observe what they are told, but not to do what the Scribes and Pharisees do." The sins of the Pharisees that Jesus lists in the opening verses all deal with pride. Interestingly enough, the more conservative theological sect of the time of Jesus were the Pharisees, and they were also the biggest hypocrites. This should be a warning to any of us who believe we have a "proper" theology. Having a correct knowledge of God and his character does not always yield a life that best lives out the image of God. I believe this is the first point in understanding how theology relates to the law of love.
Jesus goes on to list seven woes against the Scribes and Pharisees. I believe these woes can clue us in to the heart of Jesus, and perhaps what theology he said could get in the way of adhering to the law of love.
1. Pushing people out of the Kingdom
The first "woe unto the Pharisees" came because the Pharisees did not have a proper understanding of the Kingdom of God. Jesus taught that anyone is accepted into the Kingdom of God, and the Pharisees could not accept that. A theology that should be debated is a theology of exclusion. Anyone is invited to come in, of course once a citizen of the kingdom, there are laws to abide by; but, it is never up to us to say whether or not someone is allowed in to the Kingdom of God and whether or not he can be thrown out. It is the King's job to say who is in the Kingdom and who is not. One who adheres to the dangerous theology of exclusion is taking God's job away and saying he can do it better.
2. Converts over Disciples
Because of the major push that takes place within evangelical circles to evangelize, this is a difficult woe to handle sensitively. Jesus said in verse 15:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.Unfortunately, today this still goes on due to a second dangerous theology. Please know, I take the Great Commission very seriously. The trouble is, many of our "evangelism programs" do not. Many programs emphasize something called "confrontational evangelism." This does not seem to be the tactic that Jesus used when he worked to seek and to save the lost. Just as Jesus' primary goal was not to correct bad theology, our primary goal should never be evangelism. Our primary goal should always be to make disciples of Jesus. The Pharisees often made disciples of themselves, and many of our "evangelism programs" are set up to do very much the same.
It is important to note that I am talking about the majority of "evangelism programs," not all. Also, I believe that there are many devout disciples of Christ who use even the worst of these programs with the law of Love in mind and fulfill the Great Commission better than many who have a proper understanding of discipleship.
3. No moment by moment accountability to God
The third woe deals with a complex system of how to make a vow or oath that the Pharisees developed. The Pharisees would have to swear by something in order for their word to be taken seriously. Jesus told them that their yes should be yes, and their no should be no. The lifestyle that Jesus demonstrated was one of honesty, because he had a real accountability to his heavenly father. Someone whose theology allows them to not have any real constant accountability to God for his actions is in real danger. This can happen as a result of belief in hard determinism, extreme free-will, or even as a theologian climbs the rungs of understanding and enlightenment that come from great amounts of personal study. When we lose our accountability to God, we lose our integrity with people.
4. Overlook the weightier matters of the law
The fourth woe deals with "check-list style Christianity." It is easier to live in a ritualistic lifestyle than a relationship. Jesus criticized the way the Pharisees took care of the minute matters of the law and overlooked the "weightier matters: justice, and mercy and faithfulness." When theology lived out puts more emphasis on what others see than what we do in private, we live out a faith that is in great danger of being religiosity rather than true faithfulness. Legalism can make a follower look like a tree that bears great fruit, when inside he is truly rotting.
5. Seek external purity over internal purity
This woe is intricately connected to the last one. When a theology leads a follower to live in ritual, he is in danger of never experiencing true transformation. Jesus taught that heart transformation was of the greatest importance to God. Rituals were supposed to aide in bringing about true heart change, but the Pharisees made the rituals the end rather than the means. When our theology lived out is a set of rituals that make us look clean and no inner transformation takes place, we need to reevaluate what we believe.
6. Dead inside
Often in the American church today, there is an overwhelming sense of a need to "have it all together." This theology has lead to a lot of dishonesty about where individual believers are in their journey within the church. Likewise, the sixth woe unto the Pharisees dealt with the fact that they seemed to have it all together, but they were really dead inside. True theology should lead a believer into a community where he can be honest about what he is struggling with and going through. A pious theology can be dangerous, as it often leads to a life lived not in true, honest, open community, but one lived with a mask that covers the need for transformation.
7. Follow in the traditions of those who persecute the true prophets
The final woe pertains to how the Pharisees claimed that they would have lived differently from their forefathers. Sadly, in the tradition of all of those who martyred the prophets before them, Jesus was handed over and crucified by those very Pharisees. We must continue to reevaluate and not carry on those traditions of theology that oppress, but discover and live theology that transforms.
Conclusion
Part of not carrying on the traditions of our forefathers is learning not to argue about theology that doesn't matter. So many times we argue over how sovereign God is, how punishment will flesh out in the end, when Jesus will come back, how old the earth is, and how Satan operates.
These were not the kinds of things Jesus was concerned with. For a student of theology, they need to be studied. They DO NOT need to be relationship barriers to members of the Kingdom of God. We need to come to a place of realizing that the points we need to argue are the points where theology excludes, makes converts over disciples, gives no accountability to God, overlooks justice, mercy, and faithfulness, leads a believer to live in ritual over relationship, does not transform, covers up the struggles of the believer with a mask, and is carried out for the sake of tradition.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:34-40
Our theology should lead us to live a life devoted to the "higher law of love." That means, when we disagree with one another on the finer points, we resolve to work together to bring God's Kingdom and rule to earth as it is in Heaven.
I feel like I just read something by a life-long author! Well done!
ReplyDelete"So many times we argue over how sovereign God is, how punishment will flesh out in the end, when Jesus will come back, how old the earth is, and how Satan operates."
ReplyDeleteWhile these may seem insignificant to the "law of love" when only expressed through theological exercises, when they are applied to real life circumstances I would say they are a little more weighty.
for example: if we have an incorrect view of the sovereignty of God it would be extremely easy for us to "exclude" and "include" based on what ever legalistic parameters we have set up, where as if we have a true understanding of the sovereignty of God we have to realize that we have nothing to do with our salvation to begin with therefore how could we begin to include or exclude someone else, because we didn't do anything to be "included to begin with."
some battles are worth fighting and shouldn't be trivialized just because they are battles.
But like you said orthodoxy should absolutely lead to orthopraxy.
Paul also had some pretty harsh words for teachers of false doctrine.
Hi Scott. This is an interesting article you have posted for sure. Interestingly, I have been pondering on some topics somewhat related to this. Rest assured I enter into this conversation with an eagerness to grow and have my sword sharpened—not to win an argument. In fact, I really do not come asserting an argument, rather, to ask some questions to seek clarification and enter into what I hope will be a fruitful dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI believe your thesis is that you believe theology does matter, but just not in the way the most Christians in American churches seems to think. If I am wrong please let me know. Just so I and maybe others know exactly where you are coming from--in what way do you believe Christians in American churches see theology? Of course, that is a very broad statement and question, so I would be interested (and maybe others) in specifics that lead to your remaining points in the blog. Is your view that most Christians in America are more bent on changing people’s theology rather than seeing people pass from the realm of death to life by entering into an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ (like the Pharisees)? If so, is that within academia or just churches within the southeast US (I wonder how many church-goers actually know what their theology is)? Again, I just want to accurately understand your thesis.
I also agree with your statement that ‘This should be a warning to any of us who believe we have a "proper" theology’ speaking of pride. I know several people in academia and otherwise that seem to love a theological system more than they love the Savior which leads to an arrogant pride—I have been there myself and may still be in some cases. However, I do not believe the pride issue relates only to theology. I believe it can relate to someone who thinks they have the proper way to fix a car, write a book, teach a class, or preach a sermon. Pride is an elusive sin that can enter in any facet of one’s life I believe.
As far as Jesus scolding the Pharisees, I believe you are absolutely correct—their orthopraxy did not match their orthodoxy and Jesus was straight-up to call them hypocrites. Furthermore, I believe it is clear that they actually had a bad theology based on the woes even though they practiced lip-service by sitting on Moses’ seat teaching the Scriptures (even though they went beyond their role and added legalisms to God’s Word).
As far as your commentary on the first woe of the Pharisees pushing people out of the Kingdom and how a theology of exclusion should be debated, I think I know what you mean in context but I just want to make sure. By default, I believe a good theology of salvation carries within it a sense of being “in” or “out” based on the shed blood of Jesus. We both know that those who never turn from their sins and place their trust in Jesus Christ are “out” of the Kingdom of God and are actually enemies of God. I believe what you are getting at, however, is how the Pharisees added other man-made, legalistic laws in order for people to enter the Kingdom of God, therefore, that bad theology should be debated. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, then I say Amen! However, to reduce the Gospel message to some sort of universalism (without any exclusion) is, I believe, bad theology.
As far as your second point, I agree that much of the Great Commission has been replaced with pragmatism and programs that simply do not work. However, I believe the root of the problem is simply to get numbers, in other words, wrong motivation. I think it is possible that some of these methods may actually work if the motivation behind them was Christ-centered, not number driven. Like you said, I don’t trash any of the methods that exalt Jesus and proclaim His death, burial, and resurrection. However, I do trash a lot of the motivation behind the methods. I believe we see that in v. 15; the Pharisees’ motivation was not centered at all on God. Just think if they were faithful!!
...more to follow
As far as point three, I agree. The Pharisees placed more credibility in the creation than the Creator—idolatry. As you mention, many theological systems become people’s measure rather than God. Not to say that a theological system is bad, but when it becomes a God thing it becomes a bad thing.
ReplyDeletePoints four and five – I agree
Point six – I agree. In fact, I agree with Mark Driscoll who says that the preacher should not only call for the repentance of sinners, but also call for the repentance of those who are in the churches every Sunday and think they are OK because of their religiosity but are really still dead in their trespasses and sins. This is a big problem today I believe (just based on the few churches I preached at and other observations).
Point 7 – I agree
The only thing that I believe that needs to be clearly emphasized however is that good theology is important; in fact, very important. A good systematic theology comes from a good biblical theology. I think we err to say that theology needs to be minimized or viewed with suspicion. In fact, I think we see what happens when theology is minimized in many of our main-line protestant denominations—they are dead and irrelevant. In fact, I like this quote from Driscoll (who will soon be releasing a theology book):
"To let go of the gospel is liberal syncretism, which also leads to irrelevance. How? By rarely, if ever, speaking of sin and repentance in personal and not just institutional and systemic terms. Syncretism simply baptizes unscriptural beliefs in the name of a good non-judgmental impression. Syncretism inevitably dissolves into a universalism I which God loves everyone, and will forgive everyone’s sins and take everyone to heaven because he simply lacks the courage to judge anyone. Eventually, syncretists become less distinctively Christian in favor of an inoffensive spiritual truth." (The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll, taken from The Convergent Church by Liederbach and Reid)
Interestingly, to become weak in good theology is to be irrelevant. Conversely, to be strong in good theology can lead to being very relevant (if it is married with proper orthopraxy, not just left in the classroom).
In summary, I believe that to have an orthopraxy based on bad theology is to be like the Pharisees, which does nothing for the Kingdom of God and does not impact culture in a positive way. However, to have an orthopraxy based upon good theology should be what Christians strive for in order to bring glory to God and fulfillment of the great commission in our current culture. We should not minimize theology nor make an idol out of it. As with most other things we must strike a balance and avoid reactionary measures that may swing too far one way or the other.
I believe this is what you are getting at.
Take care.
@mike:
ReplyDeleteMike, I agree wholeheartedly with you about the fact that teachers of false doctrines need to be dealt with. My contention is not to "trivialize battles" of theology. I probably lost the main idea in all that I covered in this post. Let me give a practical application to bring clarity to what I had to say:
I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you are of the Reformed perspective. I am not. If the opportunity presented itself, I would love to do Kingdom work with you. You are a brilliant guy who loves Jesus, and it would be dumb for me to be divisive over that point. Within certain circles of Christianity, I am seeing folks unwilling to do Kingdom work based on these kinds of differences. Should we discuss? Yes. Should we become divisive? No. Paul had some pretty harsh words against those who became divisive.
@Brent:
Wow Bro, you gave me a lot to answer for! I guess I should watch out how long of a post I make, because the more I say the more I may have to clarify ;).
1. Theological divisiveness can take place in a local level in the church, but probably it takes place more than not within the academic world. This primarily comes out of my experiences with individuals, and since I am in Bible College at the moment, my particular sample comes mainly out of academia.
2. I believe someone is in or out of the Kingdom, and no I am not leaning toward universalism. You had a correct understanding.
3. I believe you have a good handle on what I am getting at. My main contention is this: we need to pay more attention to cleaning up our theology of what the Gospel really is and less divisive on the finer points of theology. (I would say this even goes hand in hand with a discussion you and I had the night we went to Tampicos.)
Thank you both for your comments. It is great to be on a journey of spiritual growth and to have the opportunity to experience that in community with others. If I need to clarify any further points, feel free to ask!
Lol…yeah I did get a little long-winded. I suppose too much coffee mixed with a lot of reading does things like that.
ReplyDeleteThere is something else that catches my eye. You state “Having a correct knowledge of God and his character does not always yield a life that best lives out the image of God.” I think most people would agree with that statement on the surface, but when we dig deeper into that I think we should ask: “Why is that the case?” or even “Is that the case?”
We both have seen people that profess one thing (that they believe they have knowledge of) and then live another way. I wonder if they actually have knowledge of God. By knowledge, I do not mean a superficial understanding in the mind that has not been wed to the heart. What I do mean by knowledge is an understanding of God which permeates their very being which comes from God’s self revelation in the Bible. Sometimes, I think a false dichotomy is constructed in that knowledge of God (doctrine that stems from theology) is separate from a warm, deep relationship with God lived out in a Christians life. I believe the two are intertwined in the purest sense. I think John addressed this in his first epistle and Calvin and Luther also had this idea of (true) knowledge leading one to a closer relationship with God. So, I think that one’s doctrine does flesh itself out in their life for the good or the bad. The problem is that many have a bad theology.
That naturally leads then to why do we see Christians that do not have a deep, true knowledge of God as expressed in their lives? I think for one reason that while theology is being taught fervently in many churches they do not take it far enough. I think many churches just teach facts to fill the head while leaving out the meat of how that theology actually applies to one’s life, in other words, lack of discipleship. I can understand the reaction of some who see this and think the resolution to this is to not focus on theology or at least put it on the back-burner. However, I believe that would actually be counterproductive and at most toxic (cf. 2 Tim. 2 and 4). I think we need to teach with a greater passion good theology that weds the mind and heart together (not making theology in of itself or a particular theological system an idol as is prevalent today, especially in academia). Not just rote facts, but theology that answers the “so what?” questions and goes out to the world with the love of Christ fully equipped. Any theology that neglects that is bad theology.
To do something short of that, I believe, would lead to a dry, cold, wooden theology that does not flesh itself out in a positive, loving manner in the dark world we live. Unfortunately, in academia I think we both see why this is easy to do due to the very nature of academia. However, we can be the ones who change that, and that is what is exciting!!
Anyways, this has been an enjoyable conversation and hopefully I have not been too long-winded.
Perhaps I should have said "Having a correct knowledge of how others perceive God and his character does not always yield a life that best lives out the image of God.”
ReplyDeleteI guess the knowledge I was talking about would have better fit the definition: "superficial understanding in the mind that has not been wed to the heart."
You make a valid point. I think it is impossible to know the true God in an intimate relationship and not live out his image.
You haven't been too long winded at all. I appreciate your participation and hope that this blog continues to fuel these kinds of conversations.