“The weakness in
evangelicalism is also its minimalism. Doctrinal minimalism in one generation
can be a way of focusing the fight; in another, the path to doctrinal
indifference.”[1]
On October 31st, 2017
the Church will celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s
posting of his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenberg, Germany. This event
set into motion the irreversible movement known as the protestant reformation.
It is sad to say that the significance of this event is lost on many Christians.
And it is sadder still to say that American Christians with their unfettered access
to information and education through modern technology remains inexcusably and unconscionably
ignorant of the significance of this movement. Even in my own church, at
breakfast with some of my own fellow members of a large Southern Baptist
Church, I was shocked to learn that one of those men thought it absurd that our
church would acknowledge the anniversary with any sort of celebration when the
time arrives. The same person rejected the idea that Rome preaches a different
gospel. This attitude and level of sheer ignorance is pervasive, especially in
the American version of Christianity.
It is very unlikely that Martin
Luther fully understood the firestorm for which his document would serve as the
spark. Luther understood that some practices desperately needed to be
corrected. But he was in no way calling for what would end up becoming the
complete breach of the Church he had come to know and love. God was surely
moving to reform his church in ways that Luther could have never known. This
would be the second time that Luther had issued a list of theses in hopes of
sparking theological debate. The first attempt was in April of the same year,
just five months earlier when he penned 97 theses, entitled Disputations
against Scholastic Theology. It was an open attack against the
neo-Pelagianism of the later schoolmen and a call for a return to Augustinian
theology. It awakened no one. It hardly aroused a single syllable of
discussion, let alone a serious debate. The situation would be remarkably
different in October when he penned his 95 theses, Disputation on the Power
and Efficacy of Indulgences. Martin Luther was concerned with something far
more significant than simply possessing a cogent theological system. Luther was
concerned with the gospel itself. What distinguishes the Reformation, however,
is that its deepest theological concern was the gospel itself.[2]
The Christian Church continues to
face threats, mostly from within, that in one way or another go to the heart of
the gospel. What modern conservative evangelicals are contending for is not
tradition, contrary to the claims of emergent hipsters and even some among the
young restless reformed camps. The battle is not a power struggle between and
old guard and the newer, younger, more progressive one. The issue has always
been, from the beginning down to this very day, a gospel issue.
During the reformation there were
two very different camps that occupied John Calvin: Rome and the Anabaptists.
Both camps, in their own way, threatened the gospel by threatening the only
source of the gospel: sola Scriptura. In order for salvation to be
secured, something must secure it. Perseverance must persevere in something.
What sustains the life of the church is nothing other than Scripture breathed
into her continually by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that His Words are life! (John
6:53) Peter knew fully that Jesus’ words were the very words of eternal life.
(John 6:68) There is no separating Christian life from Christian Scripture. Any
attempt to diminish the place and role of Scripture in Christianity is an
attempt to destroy the life brought by Christ Himself.
The Roman Catholic Church had
destroyed Scripture, yanking it down from its lofty place by equating tradition
with it, and by claiming that the interpretation of the Church was of equal
authority with the divine revelation. Evangelicals used to be far-removed from
the Catholic Church and her aberrant theology. Not so much in modern times as
my own fellow church-member indicates. Why have we moved ever closer to Roman
Theology over recent decades? Part of this shift began or at least picked up
steam in 18th century enlightenment and in 19th century
American revivalism. It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who described American
Protestantism as “Protestantism without the Reformation.” Much of this
condition can be laid at the feet of the Christian leaders who tolerated the revivalist
preacher, Charles G. Finny. Finny set aside the sufficiency of Scripture and
focused on new methods of outreach. These methods would infect American
Protestantism, especially evangelicals, with a cancerous and erroneous view of
the gospel that remains prevalent down to this very day. Finny believed that
conversion from one form of behavior to another was a natural process. He
rejected the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and justification by Christ’s
imputed righteousness for Finny, was a false gospel. Finny believed that full
present obedience is a condition of justification. From this revivalist
movement, the Anabaptist idea of an inner voice and a focus on individual
experience ignited a wild fire in the church that continues to burn bright in
American evangelicalism to this day. Calvin battled both the Roman and the
Anabaptist fires. Both separate the Spirit from the Word by advocating the
living voice of God with the inner speech of the church or of the pious
individual.[3]
Both of these approaches to Christianity naturally lead to a false gospel. Rome
insists that the Scripture requires the living presence of the Spirit speaking
through the magisterium while enthusiastic evangelicals (charismatics, Pentecostals,
Baptists, etc.) emphasize a supposedly immediate, direct encounter with the
Holy Spirit speaking in our hearts. In the former case, the church is the
mediator of divine truth while in the latter, it is the individual. Both require
a synergistic approach to the gospel that is absent from New Testament
teachings and its historical record.
“Enthusiasm” – the tendency to
assimilate God’s external Word to the inner word – is inseparable from the
Pelagian tendency to assimilate God’s saving gospel to our own efforts.[4] No
longer does the Word of God sit in judgment over our thoughts, our claims, even
our behavior. Modern evangelicals are beginning to call into question, not just
the reliability and credibility of the Bible, but even its morality. The inner
voice prevails over the external Word. No longer does the external Word of God
come to us, changing us, threatening our comfortable way of life, convicting us
for our wicked thoughts and actions. Instead, the inner voice, my voice, my
moral experience, what I know because science told me so, threatens every
aspect of the Bible and with that threat, the gospel as well.
When we insist on an inerrant
text, we are not insisting on keeping with tradition for the sake of tradition.
We do not strive to hang on to the old for the sake of its antiquity. We are
not fighting for familiarity. The issue is the gospel. When we insist on taking
Genesis 1-11 at face value, we are interested, not in preserving an age-old
view or a traditional interpretation. We see what others do not because our
understanding of the gospel is different from others who apparently, because of
their understanding of the gospel, do not see the connections. Men like Andy
Stanley claim that we can let some beliefs slide, like, for example, the virgin
birth. As long as we have the resurrection we have enough! But such thinking
indicates to me that Stanley has a dangerously flawed and deficient view of the
gospel. The resurrection is meaningless if Jesus was not God in the flesh. And
if there was no virgin birth, there is no God in the flesh. And if there is no
God in the flesh, there is no imputed righteousness because Jesus, like the
rest of us, was born a sinful man. And if Jesus was a sinful man, there is no
gospel. See how that works? We aren’t upset because Stanley challenges an old
belief or a tradition. We are upset because Stanley’s view destroys the gospel.
This is why the reformed camp eventually coined the phrase: Ecclesia
reformata, semper reformanda: The Church reformed, always reforming. Sin
stands at the door always desiring to lead us into error, into heresy, into
damnable doctrines of demons. The Christian community is spiritual boot camp,
always, never ending. It isn’t the place for coffee, donuts, niceties, and
small talk about the latest in toddler fashions. It isn’t a time for prolonged
discussions about whether or not the Warriors will sweep the Cavs. It is an
equipping ground. Churches need to understand the purpose of the community, the
purpose of our gatherings. Grace is dispensed to combat the enemy in every way.
But the act of participating in a vibrant community should not be so cozy and
undisturbed.
How do we recover the gospel? It
begins with deliberate leaders who take the task of leading seriously. It
begins with men who fear God more than they fear man. Think about the reformers
and what they risked. Think about Martin Luther and the risk he took with each
passing exchange. As each encounter with Rome unfolded, Luther’s resolve grew
stronger until eventually, he realized the stakes were much higher and the
cause much greater than he had imagined at the beginning. He could be burned at
the stake or beheaded or imprisoned for life. But this did not stop him. It
only served to strengthen his resolve. The gospel will not be preserved or
reclaimed by cowards who care more about popularity, prestige, their kingdoms,
being liked, being rock stars, their careers, their names, their images, than
they do about God’s view of them.
Let us echo with Luther: Unless
I am refuted and convinced by testimonies of Scripture or by clear reason –
since I believe neither the popes nor the councils by themselves, for it is
clear that they have often erred and contradicted themselves – I am conquered by
the holy Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of
God. I cannot and will not withdraw anything, since it is neither safe nor
right to do anything against one’s conscience. Here I stand. God help me. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment