« I know, stop beating a dead horse. But stuff like this really, really burns me. Maybe it's just me! | Main | The full gestation of our thoughts.... »
April 29, 2006
Thanking those who have fostered our faith, but who we now disagree with...
Mike Devries made a very good comment on my last blog posting and reminded me of something very important. He said, (speaking of these men who just recently signed this Confession and Articles at the Together for the Gospel Conference: J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul):
Obviously these gentlemen are great scholars and thinkers, yet we must admit that there are great scholars and thinkers who foundationally disagree with them. Both love Jesus dearly. The part that seems to hurt is the divisive language of exclusion [i.e. "we have the right perspective and everything else is destructive to the true interpretation of the gospel, which we have."] that permeates the articles. [But perhaps that is my own take on them.]
When I was in college I used to listen to John MacArthur on the radio every night, and one of my favorite books was Reason To Believe by R. C. Sproul. These guys and some others helped me foster my early faith, but as I have gotten older I have moved away from their perspectives and been fostered by others.
I don't know what it should look like, but there must be a place where we acknowledge and thank those who played a role in our faith journey even though we may now disagree with them partially or completely. We all learn something from the various church communities, denominations, etc. that we are a part of, and though we may drift from them they are still a part of our history. And though we may disagree, all of us as Christians still must find a way to work together.
So at the same time, I believe that I can both be thankful for the roles that Sproul, MacArthur and others played in the development of my early faith, but I can also disagree with them and the stances they take.
I believe that as Christians we often use very exclusionary language the helps us determine whether or not someone is in the same "camp" or "circle" as us. If they are not, then they become "those" people over there, or those "pagan" or "non-Christians" over there. And most often we use our fine pointed theological doctrine to exclude multitudes of people that I believe Christ wants us to embrace. There are many excluded and marginalized people in our church communities, such as women, the poor, handicapped, minority groups, etc., etc.
I reject exclusion because the prophets, evangelists, and apostles tell me that this is a wrong way to treat human beings, any human being, anywhere, and I am persuaded to have good reasons to believe them.
Miroslav Volf in Exclusion and Embrace
Posted by rhett at April 29, 2006 01:17 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rhettsmith.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/421
Comments
I was just driving down the road and some thoughts came to mind.
First of all, one gentleman, by the name of Mike DeVries, made the comment (on your "I know, stop beating a dead horse. But stuff like this really, really burns me. Maybe it's just me!" post) that Galatians 3:28 is "directly speaking to the erasure of social distinctions [sic] on some level." The problem is that Galatians 3:28 is not refering to social distinction whatsoever. From verse 15 through verse 29, Paul is declaring that Jews, Greeks, men, women, etc. are all under the same law and that the promise of God is offered to all types of persons regardless of sex, race, tongue, etc. So no, the passage in Galations is not a passage refering to social distinctions. It is a passage declaring the freeness of God in saving Jews, Greeks, men, women, etc. and adopting them all as sons (3:26).
Please let me be as clear as possible, I am in no way advocating blatant, prejudicial, censorious exclusion in the church. Please hear that. But Paul does make exclusive remarks regarding the church - who can serve, who can't serve, with whom Christians ought to fellowship, etc...
So to make the assertion that we ought to reject exclusion altogether is a bit sub-biblical.
Last quick blurb: why is there no wide-spread controversy over the exclusion of "new convert[s]" in the eldership of a church (1Tim 3:6)?
I hope that you can tell that my tone is not defensive or hostile in any way. I am merely a brother attempting to, by the Grace of God's infinite love, grow in the knowlegde of Him. Again, as we have mentioned before Rhett, we differ theologically. But that is no reason for you, your friends, your colleagues, other persons with whom you do agree, and myself (and those with whom you disagree) to shy away from reasonable disputations. As long as we continue to seek to magnify Christ, through the power of the Spirit of Grace, our conversations should be fruitful.
Posted by: austin at April 29, 2006 04:27 PM
Great post...I resonate deeply with this. I thank MacArther, as well. He forged some of my faith. But, however amazing of a mind and scholar, I don't follow the style of leading he has modeled and disagree with some of his key positions such as "Lordship Salvation".
Posted by: Rich at April 29, 2006 07:58 PM
WOW! I wonder what church you are talking about, that excludes, women, or the poor, or, handicapped, or minorities.
I didn't see any of that in the Statement and Confession that you are referring to.
Seems fairly simple and straightforward to me. As I stated in comments on your other post, (I know, stop beating a dead horse) I would like some Biblical references for your seemingly arrogant dismissal of these giants in the faith.
I want to abjectly apologize if I am seeing and reading this incorrectly, but your entire statement seems to reek of the Humanistic Political Correctness, and condescending arrogance that seems to be charging through the Mainline Churches these days.
Posted by: Linda at April 30, 2006 12:58 PM
A fine sentiment Rhett, and I appreciate your openness to discussion, but I have one point to bring up.
Maybe it's me, but doesn't this post and the previous one on the Together for the Gospel conference, set an exclusive tone in themselves?
As a follower of Christ, I'm never afraid to speak out about what I see as false doctrine or wrongly applied theology, yet I do so in an attitude of humbleness toward those with who I disagree.
In speaking and writing about the traditional churches and their leaders in an adversarial manner, how do you advance the Unity in Christ that our Lord has called us to?
Personally, I want to read about your personal journey of faith and how God is working in your life... not about what other people are doing wrong. For instance, what has occurred in your personal journey to bring you to a point where you now find disagreement with men you formerly agreed with? That would be an interesting post.
Posted by: Ray at April 30, 2006 02:38 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
