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.
7 years ago
8 comments:
WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE BEATEN!!! OH NOOOOOOOOOO! Simply because we'll be judged at the end of time as well. Fortunately, intention carries a lot of weight, so grace can come in and at least keep us from going to hell or something like that :) Accurate theology is so interesting to me! Because God isn't about "the Law" but then again, He kinda is. It's a balance issue that we need to understand and follow with our hearts!! GOOD BLOODY JOB!
Abby, I am chagrinned that I am only now discovering your blog. What I find here is truth, grace and wisdom. This from a granddaughter who has always been a remarkable blessing but whose depth, even yet, we have not plumbed. May the Lord keep you and may you be blessed even as you are a blessing. G'pa
For the sake of discussion - :-)
I suppose it depends some on your definition of "conflict." I believe you are correct that many times people are arguing for the sake of proving their own correctness. If a person is confident in God's truth, there is no reason for that. However, continuing a discussion, proclamation, or even action is not necessarily wrong. Stephen was stoned for continuing to state the gospel in spite of fierce opposition. The clear truth, even in love and when they need to hear it, often makes people angry. That doesn't mean its wrong to say it. Jesus went so far as to physically remove vendors from the temple. Of course, we would have to be very careful about how to apply that as we live Christ-like lives, but he began and ended his time on earth with this action. Peter and John were thrown into prison for speaking the truth. Paul was chased out of town in fear of his life. Believers through the ages have been hunted and slaughtered. Trouble makers, they were. All of this seems to fall under the heading of "conflict," but one party is not at fault. Some will reject the only one true God no matter how nice we are, and in the process they will be often be violent. After all, if we are right, they have some big, scary problems.
I enjoyed reading your post! It's great to discuss these things. Lots of love to you.
Aunt Laura,
Thank you for the comment! You are exactly right - no matter how humbly we present things, it will still offend people. It is completely possible to have a conflict where one party is innocent, especially as you get into martyr situations and crimes of war and such. Even between parent and child, a parent can be absolutely right and not need to apologize at all.
In my personal life, I want to know that I know that I know that I'm not placing any of my confidence in my own ability to be right, and that the absolutes that I do have are the same ones the Bible has. I know myself to be easily caught by pride in being correct.
Maybe the outcome of a conflict proves how much pride was involved, like with the biblical examples you provided. Thank you again for the comment - love you!
I would like to clarify that 'it always takes two' is the motto for non-essentials:) Grace and humility with the absolutes - whether well received or not:)
When the deuce are you going to write another post?! Hopefully some CS will get you motivated!
. . . and another thing: you don't tweet enough.
That's what break is for - building up an arsenal of good blog post topics and tweets to save! Mostly I do just need motivation, but remember I'm working on my secret project too. Ask and you shall receive; a blog post will be up maybe by Sunday.
Post a Comment