What if I'm Right, Though?

As I come to the close of what would be the first semester of my sophomore year of college, I find myself wondering about whether or not I will go back to school at some point, what I'd go back for, etc. I'm still unsure, but I am determined to never stop learning. In that spirit, I recently bought a textbook - Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology - and I'm loving it. The questions drive me to answer questions that are rarely asked, and even more rarely answered. Question-less belief is convenient, and it makes it easier to sleep at night, but once you start to ask questions that "Christians aren't supposed to ask," solid, real, humble, and martyr-like confidence comes and fills in gaps where you didn't think it mattered. I'll be posting some of the more controversial questions - and my attempts at answering them.

--------------------------------------------------

Question #1 on the Inerrancy of Scripture, Systematic Theology: "How could pride in correct doctrine become a problem?"

One of my mother's life mottos is that "it always takes two" when it comes to fighting. There is no such thing as an innocent party in a conflict. This is great as a kid if you are carrying 75% of the responsibility for the fight, because the other sibling is most likely going to get a spanking as well. It's not so great if you are carrying less than 20% of the responsibility, and especially if you're actually right about the issue. Because you'll probably get spanked for fighting, whether you're right or not.

If you're correct about the argument in question, it's not really pride - because you're right. Right?

But isn't it true that the same message could come from two different people and you would receive it from one, because of their humility, and reject it from the other, because of their pride? As a communicator, I want to be humble in that case... but I also want to be correct. Can the two co-exist? Is it still "being wise in one's own eyes" (Pro. 3:7) if it's the Bible? It's possible to miss the intention of Scripture by simply being arrogant about it. After all, the Pharisee's were all about the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. That belief guarantees nothing.

This is the perspective I want to have:
"Throughout the history of the church the greatest preachers have been those who have recognized that they have no authority in themselves and have seen their task as being to explain the words of Scripture and apply them clearly to the lives of their hearers. Their preaching has drawn its power not from the proclamation of their own Christian experiences or the experiences of others, nor from their own opinions, creative ideas, or rhetorical skills, but from God's powerful words."

The Bible must be fought for to the death, but I wonder if God is with us when we fight over the Bible. Is the Bible an opinion where you're the authority on the subject, or a fact that you are subject to yourself? THAT is where Christianity makes a difference! It's a place between arrogance and confidence; liberty and boundary. It's between the salt that makes the world crave Jesus and the bitter that turns it hostile.

So, my answer: pride in correct doctrine can become a problem whenever there's pride involved.

In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas. And, it always takes two.