Surfing the blogsites - what does it all mean?

I have a mate with whom I have been having challenging theological debates for decades.  I regularly send him bits and pieces from the various blogsites that I monitor - some from the solid reformed tradition, some from the emerging 'tradition'.  In response to one item I sent him (TIME article entitled "Is Hell dead?) he sent these questions:

• What do you make of all this surfing? Does it harden your resolve to hold onto the Biblical Truth - or do you consider some of these alternative views of followers of Jesus and wonder if there might be something there?
• The argument shouldn't be about Hell and Heaven (even if there are such places) and who gets in - thats just control gate keeping.   Surely the fundamental question should be about what it means to be a follower of Christ.  And does that mean holding on to a certain dogma.  Believing in a Virgin Birth or not, arguing about whether Jesus was physically resurrected etc could be seen to be peripheral to the matter of what it means to follow Jesus.  

Here is the somewhat garbled response I sent him?  What do you think?

"Not sure ‘harden my resolve’ is the correct term.  While my heritage is heavily influenced by what some would call the ‘reformed’ position I find myself rejecting the hard line some of these folks take on non-essential issues (e.g. women in ministry).  I flinch whenever some claim that the issue is not so much, for example, women in ministry, but whether or not we trust the Bible. 

I think I am fairly orthodox in my position regarding the Scriptures – trustworthy, reliable etc.  I think where you and I part company is somewhere in there – I am afraid that what I understand of the Jesus Seminar stuff (and I confess to having read precious little of the primary source material) doesn’t convince me at all.  I am very comfortable that when Luke writes that he wants to “… draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses …”, that is what he does! 

That does not mean that he writes in a vacuum or that his own personal perspective etc.  does not influence his style/selection of content etc.  He writes a thoroughly reliable, factual account of what happened at the time.  Understanding what he meant when he wrote X or Y may be problematic given the passage of time and the culture gap etc.; but that to me does not negate the original intent – to provide an accurate, detailed (albeit selective), structured account of the life and times of Jesus whom they believed was the promised Messiah, who rose again and who was God incarnate. 

Surfing – what is it doing for me?  I think it has opened me up to a world of people who are honestly expressing their doubts and who are working through various issues (such as the ones that you have been raising).  I am particularly attracted to those who provide a credible critique of the American reformed position (Piper, Driscoll etc.) as some aspects of that movement concern me too.  I should say that what attracts me most about the reformed tradition is (a) the emphasis on Scripture, (b) the strong intellectual integrity of the movement over time, and (c) emphasis on grace and love.  All of the latter has best been expressed for me in the warm and persuasive writings of John Stott of course. 

In terms of blogs that attract me, I like the ones that critique without falling into the negativity, legalism and lack of grace that sometimes seems to define the responses of the leading American reformed chappies.  It’s one thing to believe earnestly that you are right – it is another to express that belief and conviction with winsome humility.  Again, John Stott stands head and shoulders above the rest in this regard for me.

I will always be reluctant to ‘write off’ someone just because they hold views that are outside the current orthodoxy.  After all, that is what got the reformation growing.  However, I do think there comes a point where someone is so far from the central tenets of the faith that is arguable that they could be called Christian at all, at least in the first century understanding of the term.  The fact that so much of the gospels and the epistles contain warnings about right belief and understanding versus error seems to me to underline the importance of correct beliefs/doctrine. 

It’s a bit of a ‘baby and bathwater’ argument I think.  Paul’s letters provide the model I think – he starts with the doctrinal stuff and then leads on to the implications for behaviour – both are important.  The correct doctrine sets the foundation for the right behaviour.  Correct doctrine without corresponding transformation in behaviour (including a renewing of the mind) is just legalism.     

So that is probably a response to your second question.  I don’t think it is about gatekeeping though I can see how it might appear or feel that way – why do churches tend to be marked by exclusiveness (deciding who is out rather than in) rather than inclusiveness (which appears to be more the mark of Jesus’ ministry though I doubt the Pharisees felt that way!).

 

Rather, I think it is, or should be, about a genuine attempt to understand what the Scriptures are saying on these topics and then be faithful to them.  The real danger for me is that whenever we come across something that does not appeal to the modern mind, we work our way around it in some way or another.  Inevitably, some of the baby disappears with the bathwater it seems. 

If one believes, as I do, that the God of the universe has somehow chosen to reveal himself in (a)the person of Jesus Christ – incarnational, (b) Scripture and (c) creation/moral order etc., then it is imperative that I take seriously what he reveals about himself, even if I don’t like it.  There is just a chance that I may have got it wrong due to either (a) my finiteness – I am after all trying to comprehend God  [assuming he exists], and (b) my sinfulness/rebellion.  Consequently, I am more than happy to hold some things that I don’t understand/don’t like in abeyance pending better understanding or the afterlife when I assume we’ll have a better idea of how it all fits together.  I really don’t want a God I understand fully though I earnestly want to understand him better.  

There – you got me going on that one.  Hope the tone of my response was not too combative!!  I’ll leave the virgin birth and the resurrection to another day.  I suspect that these are peripheral issues but not in the way that you mean it.