Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his introduction to “The Cost of Discipleship” lays down an indictment against the modern church:
“The pure word of Jesus has been overlaid with so much human ballast – burdensome rules and regulations, false hopes, and consolations – that it has become extremely difficult to make a genuine decision for Christ.” [1]
For the world finds that the church is -
“Overburdened with ideas and expressions which are hopelessly out of touch with the mental climate in which they live…. They are convinced that it is not the Word of Jesus himself that puts them off, but the superstructure of human institutional and doctrinal elements in our [message].” [2]
He goes on to say that too often we “act as obstacles to Jesus” and make the gospel a “laughingstock”.
“Are we to follow the practice which has been all too common in the history of the Church and impose on men demands too grievous to bear, demands which have little to do with the centralities of the Christian faith, demands which may be a pious luxury for the few, but which the toiling masses, with their anxiety for their daily bread, their jobs, and their families, can only reject as utter blaspheme…”[3]
These are the ones for whom I am burdened.
Thomas Merton said: “We are huddled in the pale light of an insufficient answer.”[4] This is what theology amounts to; “insufficient answers”. We have subjected our faith to an insufficient doctrine, when our doctrine should be subject to our faith. In so doing we have lost what was “good” about the gospel. Look at the historical context for some of the key doctrines of the church.
“The Church in its early days… swerved to left and right, so as exactly to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly.… It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination.”[5]
Most of the doctrines were developed as reactions against heresies, defining what Christianity was not.[6] But can we articulate what it is?
Now this is not purely a theoretical exercise. I deal with people on a daily basis who have come from within the church at some point of their life. They have heard the gospel message loud and clear: Christianity is about feeding the rich at the expense of the poor. “God helps those who help themselves.” At best they have "smelled only the corpses of lifeless ideas."[7] They have seen through our attempts to explain why bad things happen to good people, and they have chosen to identify with the atheist, and the agnostic. Some see through the insufficient answers to something beyond, and try to understand it on their own.
We however have constructed in our minds a small insular world. I’ve talked to some who go to a more traditional evangelical church about what it means to be missional, or emergent, or any of a host of “alternative” brands of Christianity. Their perspective is plain and simple - the church I go to is the way it was intended to be, and anyone who disagrees is "forsaking the assembly of the brethren.”[8] On the other side I know of some people who are in non-traditional ministry, so out of touch with the aforementioned mentality that they cannot accept that it exists. “Nobody is that closed minded,” or “I've never seen or heard that.” Other Christians meet this indictment with apathy, which is a form of denial at its heart. There seems to be no regard for the concerns and questions of those outside; even avoidance. We have neglected these questions, because they require painful introspection.
“If the theologian, however does not take more seriously the objections of the ordinary washerwoman and the simple hourly wage earner, and if he thinks… that the spiritual proletariat is not aware of the delicate questions, and must have nothing to do with them… surely something is not right with theology.”[9]
We need to recover the essence of our faith, while letting go of the baggage. If there is “Good news” it needs to be actually good. We need to renounce major heresies in the church such as our obsessions with moral purity, and having all the answers. If All Truth is the provance of God alone, our faith should be the first to assimilate, and syncretize, rather than insist on its insular exclusivity.[10]
What real ministry looks like is those friendships we have in which we mutually impact each other. Real ministry is relational, it is personal, it is concerned with the small picture and the here and now. It is engaging one another in each ones life. It is staying up late to talk with someone on the phone who needs an ear, it is giving rides to that guy at work who got a DUI, it is letting your buddy come over with his broken down car, it is driving to Boston
I remember several years ago in a small prayer chapel seeing a sign which read: “Can you see the ends of the Earth from here?” Where are these ends of the Earth, to which Jesus sent his disciples? Are they simply geographic places? If that were the case, then from the perspective of Jesus did he mean to go as far from the Mount of Olives as one could get? Or did he simply mean go to a distant land from where ever you are, and preach?
The ends of the Earth are not a geographic spot, but rather the ends of the Earth may be outside your back door, your neighbor’s yard, the PTA, or Mozambique
Our problem is that the aim of the church has become growth; which we measure by numbers in the pews, and dollars in the offering plate. When this happens however, the essence of what it means to be Christian has been lost; it has turned into a capitalistic cult, with currency in both US treasury funds, and souls. Instead the Jesus of the Church; “lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution, which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn ... and crushes him ... the wheel rolls onward, and the mangled body ... is hanging upon it still.”[11]
The popularity with which Apologetics is met among evangelical circles is quite understandable. We as Americans at least, love to argue, and we feel that he with the most convincing argument must be right. But if I've learned anything from my marriage, it is that being right, doesn't mean you should win the argument. We need not let the joy of possession kill love. For it is often our unquestionable purpose to crush the other man by; “the impression of an overpowering erudition to which he could never attain, and thus reduce him to a feeling of helplessness.”[12]
Apologetics is the defense of the faith against critics, it is a defense of one’s conduct or opinions[13] and it necessitates a firm understanding of the faith one defends. That is the first flaw in American apology, for the church little understands its own dogma, there is even an anti-intellectual attitude among many of the laity (and some clergy). American apology however is also misguided. It is used as a way to throw zingers at a co-worker or heckler, the ultimate come-back if you will. It is used to defend things that have nothing to do with a faith in God's redemptive work, such as a political position, or my moral aspersions.
It seems to me however that the real “Apology” needs to be made for:
· a faith that is organic, to a church which is institutionalized,
· for a doctrine that is subordinate to our faith, to a Postmodern church that insists on figuring it all out
· for the immediacy of the gospel, to a church that seems to think it has all the time in the world
· for a gospel that is genuinely good news, to a church that has weighted it down with ballast
· for the transformative power of God, to a church that no longer believes in miracles
· and so much more
I struggle with identifying the core tenets of my faith, and debunking the false presuppositions or simply the unnecessary ones. In this venture, I've found that even the catechisms start with some foundational assumptions, and Systematic theology, although it is systematic, it is not systemic in a formational sense.
My starting point has to be the realization of my own finitude, and the hope of something greater – this is precisely the argument that drives people to atheism, because they see this as a weakness to be overcome, and yet somehow I find faith.
We really ought to have a doctrine of Heresy, that is, the understanding that because we cannot be in possession of “All Truth” we are prone to holding elements of truth in disproportion to their relationship with “All Truth.” We are all, in one way or another, heretics. God alone possesses the corner on the market of truth; and so what you will read here is more of a confession, than a doctrine. It represents a work in progress.
[1] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, The Cost of Discipleship, (New York, NY.: Simon and Schuster 1995) p.35
[2] Ibid. pp.35-36
[3] Ibid. p37
[4] Thomas Merton, from the prologue to: No Man Is An Island, (The Trustees of Merton Legacy Trust, 1993) p.xiii
[5] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (New York, NY.; John Lane Company, 1908) pp. 185–186
[6] Even the establishment of Canon was a reaction, mainly against the Marcionic Heresy (Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, second edition (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) p118)
[7] Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1962) p.14
[8] Hebrews 10:25
[9] Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1962) p.4
[10] “A pronounced preoccupation with apologetics, in which rationalistic unbelief is challenged on its own ground, has prevented many evangelicals from seeing that the great problem of the church is not with the hearer, not the modern man, but with the authenticity of the churches own message.” (Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, vol.2 Life, Ministry, and Hope, (Peabody, Ma.; Prince Press, 1998) p.275)
[11] Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Quest of the Historical Jesus), 1906 (trans. W.Montgomery, 1910) p.370-371
[12] Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1962) pp.17-18
[13] Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, second edition (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) p.24
AnteChurch: confession of a young theologian, Copyright © 2010 by J.D.M. Jinno. All rights reserved. The Author grants the right for an individual to print one complete copy of this work for personal use only. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever (including but not limited to appearance on websites other than http://www.antechurch.com) without written permission except in the case of brief quotations. You may link to http://www.antechurch.com. For more information contact the author at antechurch @ gmail.com
http://www.antechurch.com
Many of the scripture quotations contained herein are recalled from memory, but generally they resemble the NIV.
http://www.antechurch.com
Many of the scripture quotations contained herein are recalled from memory, but generally they resemble the NIV.
Other quotations, are utilized in fair use
This work is not produced for profit
If you find an error in the citation of a work for which you hold the copyright, please contact the author directly.
This work is not produced for profit
If you find an error in the citation of a work for which you hold the copyright, please contact the author directly.
