iMonk Classic: Standing on My Own Trap Door? or “I’ll Take My Christocentric Theology To Go, Thank You.”

Posted byChaplainmikePosted iniMonk 101, Michael Spencer

Classic iMonk Post
by Michael Spencer
From Nov. 29, 2007

Let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.

• Ignatius of Loyola

  • God is love. God loves his own glory most of all. God is holy. God pursues his own holiness most of all. God loves human beings. God manifests his glory by saving persons who find their joy in his glory.
  • God is merciful and compassionate, to the praise of his glory and grace. God is righteous. He is a covenant-making, law-giving God. God manifests his glory in the perfect justice that upholds his law. His mercy and holiness are not at odds, but are perfectly joined together.
  • God saves by forgiving sin and imputing righteousness. The imputation of his righteousness is the core of justification by faith alone. The imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness are the double-sides of the Gospel message.
  • The Bible is inerrant, giving us God’s sufficient word in human language. The Bible is without error, and the evident erroneousness and limitation of human language and communication does not hamper the inspiration or effectual spiritual use of scripture.
  • By studying the text of scripture, we may have the mind of Christ and the will of God for all things that pertain to life and faith. We may apply scripture in any area of life with confidence in its truthfulness, including science, politics and law.

• • •

And on and on I could go. I wonder how many readers are already up for a fight? These are the theological arguments, assertions, debates and declarations that make up the evangelical world today. Any one of the above sentences could branch out into a dozen or a hundred other related assertions.

I can’t recall the author (someone in the Wilsonite compound, I think) but I once read someone who portrayed evangelical Christians as people using all their abilities to get other people to agree to evangelistic sentences. The sentences mattered very much; more than almost anything else. Correctly worded sentences, turned into prayers, lectures, books and so on.

Miroslav Wolf said that Christianity carries a life-lived along side its truths-claimed. Saint Francis — and many others — have suggested that the life-lived communicates far more profoundly than the truths claimed, especially if it’s a matter of which shouts the loudest.

One blogger recently lamented the callous behavior of knuckle-headed cage phase Calvinists, and also lamented the theological cynics who act as if theology doesn’t matter. Having been one and constantly suspected of being the other, I liked what he said.

He makes a good point. The knuckle-headed cage phase Calvinist has theological problems as well as human relationship problems with manners, maturity and civility. My experience tells me that the two are more related than we like to think. The person who says that theology and those who live to obsess over it are an unmitigated good seem to be, uh….a bit overly optimistic.

Take, for instance, the seminary student who discovers that one theological system has all the answers he’ll ever need. All he needs is to buy the books, go to the conferences and check the websites. In more than a few cases, it would be best if he simply stopped his education and went home until he’s willing something to learn again. While he’s certain that he’s right, and he’s correcting his professors and working to overthrow any teacher who doesn’t subscribe to his hobby horse theological system, he’s useless as a student and probably off balance as a human being. The wise and the know-it-alls have no reason to learn from those who can’t/won’t/don’t see the light. (Yes, that’s me in the corner….losing my religion…)

The real problem is whether our know-it-all student is still devoted to Jesus and to what Jesus means in his life. No doubt he’ll say that it’s for Jesus’ sake that he’s hassling his professors, pastor and friends. It’s for Jesus sake that minutia now matters more than his anniversary. It’s for Jesus’ sake that theology stirs him and evangelism/church planting need more study. But does Jesus matter? Period?

The competition to make theology the main thing and just about the only thing is quite real. I have two recent letters from an IM reader distressed that I admire John Lennon as an artist. I assured him that I do not admire Lennon’s atheism, but a piece is still out of place. What’s of real interest to me is why my faith and loyalty to Jesus have to be screened through what I think of John Lennon.

The blogosphere version of the game is to select a few paragraphs out of someone’s blog, write your corrections, evaluations and insertions, then turn the comment threads loose to say the really nasty stuff. The public statement will be “here’s an area of disagreement.” The actual title of the show is “So and So Can’t Possibly Believe This and Really Be A Christian because theology matters.” Theology does matter, but how does it matter? How does it matter among those of us who say the same creed, love the same Bible, believe the same Gospel (even if we emphasize different parts of it in differing ways?)

A recent critique of Calvinism suggested there is an aversion to Christocentric theology. Don’t let that one slip by you. It’s a major league charge. I believe there’s an aversion to Christocentric necessity among theology fans of every camp. I don’t believe we can possibly get anywhere past what God has revealed in Jesus, and by Jesus I mean Jesus, not the character currently appearing in someone’s systematic and complete theology under that name.

We can discuss all sorts of sentences, but we can only know God in and through Jesus Christ. By Jesus Christ I mean Jesus of Nazareth, New Testament revealed, Old Testament concealed, actual God-Man Jesus of the Creeds. Not Jesus dressed up as a speaker at your favorite conference or a professor at your favorite seminary or Jesus hovering over your blog nodding with approval.

Jesus gives us the Bible. The Bible gives us texts. Texts give us words. Words give us something to fight about, to make more sentences about and to write more texts about, taking us back to something/someone we call Jesus. But are we on the right path?

This circle is inherently unavoidable, and extremely dangerous. But a devotion to Jesus should make the wide path of circularity avoidable and the narrow path of following the Trinitarian God possible.

I’m more than ever determined to make Jesus the center, the substance and the unavoidable conclusion of my theology. And when it comes to equipping my students with an understanding of the Bible, I’m going to be sure they understand the relative importance of the recipe, the cake and all subsequent opinions of either one.

I figured out long ago that my place in the world of internet theology is going to be decorated with posts saying that I’m throwing out babies with bathwater and I’m sacrificing truth at the expense of unity, etc. The fact is that I’m as theologically opinionated as the next person, but I’m more impressed with Jesus than I am those who write, talk and preach about him.

The single most unnerving thing N.T. Wright says is his frequent confession that he’s fairly sure he’ll one day conclude about a third of his theology was wrong. How you feel about that statement probably says all that needs to be said about the entire subject.

That means I’ll find something critical to say about everyone (starting and ending with me), just to remind myself that there’s only one Jesus who reveals the God who can’t be known otherwise (John 1:18.) And I don’t believe that when the Samaritans believed in Jesus (John 4), the appropriate next step was to set up polemic and apologetic ministries to straighten out the Samaritans on everything they believed that was wrong. Believers in Jesus one day, dangerous emerging liberals the next.

Those Samaritans (and Corinthians and Protestants and Catholics) DID believe plenty that was wrong, and Jesus spoke to it directly, but he wasn’t selling his big book of right answers. He was saying “All of the questions and answers stop right here with ME. I’m the revelation. I’m the temple. I’m the Kingdom. I’m the Messiah. Game over.”

Do I think some theologians get this better than others? Absolutely. My affection for Luther, Capon, etc. is well known and I don’t apologize for it. Do I think any of these points are worth arguing today? Of course. I’ve read Galatians. I know what Paul said about the Judaizers, who looked right at Jesus and said “Nah…..not enough.” Do I put any of my own arguments with fellow Christians on the level of believing in Jesus? Well on that one, I’m going to be very, very, very, very cautious. I’m prepared to err on accepting many of my brothers and sisters who are devoted to Jesus before I’m prepared to proclaim myself the “reformation police” and demand to see a written essay on your theory of imputation before I let you pass.

So, once again, someone can say there’s all that postmodern, emerging, touchy-feely suspicion of truth itself. I’ll answer that Jesus is the truth. The Bible is true. The Creeds are true. The Solas are true. And you’ll say there’s much to argue about to establish all of those things. You may be right, but one thing I’m sure of: The Great Commission wasn’t about theological argumentation, but about proclaiming the Gospel, planting churches and making disciples. As theology helps us do that, it’s useful. When “doing theology” replaces that Great Commission, something is wrong.

When I replace the Great Commission with the Great Ongoing Polemic To Prove My Theology Isn’t Wrong, it’s time to pull over and check the map and see if I’m anywhere close to where I think I am.

Am I standing on my own trap door when I say “Jesus isn’t identical to anyone’s theology and someone says “Without theology, who or what is Jesus?” Possibly. That’s another argument that can go in circles forever. Count me as one who’d like to find a place to stop, rest, and as the carol says, “Now let us all with one accord sing praises to the heavenly Lord.”

27 thoughts on “iMonk Classic: Standing on My Own Trap Door? or “I’ll Take My Christocentric Theology To Go, Thank You.””

  2. Ah, the Great Protestant Fallacy: “correct theology = salvation.”

    (As opposed to the Great Catholic Fallacy — “church membership = salvation” — and the Great Pentecostal Fallacy — “emotional display = salvation.”)

    Like

  3. We could make it one:

    C: Calvin is right.
    A: Agreeing with Calvin makes you right.
    G: God has predestined you to believe Calvin is right. If you don’t believe it, well, we don’t know about you.
    E: Election is made sure by the firmness of your Calvinism.

    These are the folks who claim salvation is by grace, but act like salvation is by orthodoxy.

    Like

  4. It’s the steel cage. Recent converts to Calvinism, especially young men in their 20’s, seem to have this burden to force, by weight of intellectual argument, other believers to see God as they do. As if that would answer all their problems or something. So they become very argumentative and belligerent. The blogosphere is practically exploding with them. They have the repute of being doctrine police of the worst kind.

    Like

  6. Yeah. I notice you find a LOT of the signs of Merton’s “Theology of the Devil” among contemporary Fundagelicals. A lot of which has also been dissected here on IMonk.

    Here’s another excerpt from Merton. I don’t know about you, but I was thinking “Penal Substitutionary Atonement” when I read this paragraph:

    Indeed says this system of theology, God the Father took real pleasure in delivering His Son to His murderers, and God the Son came to earth because he wanted to be punished by the Father. Both of them seek nothing more than to punish and persecute their faithful ones. As a matter of fact, in creating the world God had clearly in mind that man would inevitably sin so that God would have an opportunity to manifest His justice.

    And “Grinning Apocalyptism”, “Culture War du Jour” (see Prohibition), and what JMJ & Eagle have told us about their experiences in-country with this passage:

    The people who listen to this sort of thing, and absorb it, and enjoy it, develop a notion of the spiritual which is a kind of hypnosis of evil. The concepts of sin, suffering, damnation, punishment, the justice of God, retribution, the end of the world and so on, are things over which they smack their lips with unspeakable pleasure. Perhaps this is why they develop a deep, subconscious comfort from the thought that many other people will fall into hell which they themselves are going to escape. And how do they know that they are going to escape it? They cannot give any definite reason except that they feel a certain sort of relief at the thought of all this punishment is prepared for practically everyone else but themselves.

    This feeling of complacency is what they refer to as “faith”, and it constitutes a kind of conviction that they are “saved”.

    The devil makes many disciples by preaching against sin. He convinces them that the great evil of sin, induces a crisis of guilt by which “God is satisfied:. And after that he lets them spend the rest of their lives meditating on the intense sinfulness and evident reprobation of other men.

    Like

  7. Some help here: what exactly is a “cage phase Calvinist”? Is that cage like a steel cage in a wrestling match? Is C-A-G-E an acronym like TULIP? Anyone know?

    Like

  9. “The single most unnerving thing N.T. Wright says is his frequent confession that he’s fairly sure he’ll one day conclude about a third of his theology was wrong. How you feel about that statement probably says all that needs to be said about the entire subject.”

    I’ve already thrown out half of my theology, and the rest is on shaky ground. I’m with K.W. Leslie above, “I’m wrong, Jesus is right”.

    Thanks for this classic post. Micheal had something to say about every issue in modern christianity. And that’s why I rank him with N.T. Wright and Thomas Merton as my most influential theologians.

    Like

  12. Ha! Earlier I searched google images for “theology” for my own reasons, and came across the same comic, which I will be featuring on my own blog shortly 🙂

    Like

  13. i am at a loss trying to explain this Jesus that i know, admire, follow…worship…

    i do understand the motivation of countless theologians/apologists thru the ages that have labored sincerely in defining just who this Jesus is we claim as Lord, Savior, Son of God, Messiah, Christ, Lamb that was slain, etc.

    there was the original oral history of the Apostles. then there were the gospel accounts. then there were the apologetic defenses of the early Church Fathers. there have been far greater minds than mine to extol the depths of this Jesus from Nazareth that for us is the perfect reflection of the Father, Emmanual…God with us…

    however, at the end of the day, those that do not know about Jesus or have a warped view of Him as a result of those that do claim to be His representative, only will be convinced of one thing: don’t preach to me about this Jesus you champion, but simply show me. show me this Jesus of the gospels doing the things He did then in the here-and-now. show me Jesus in action in the very nitty-gritty reality of the life you have encountered me in right now…

    Like

  15. “On the contrary, in the devil’s theology, the important thing is to be absolutely right and to prove that everybody else is absolutely wrong. This does not exactly make for peace and unity among men, because it means that everyone wants to be absolutely right himself or to attach himself to another who is absolutely right.”
    — Thomas Merton, “The Moral Theology of the Devil”

    Like

  17. I don’t think it wouldn’t matter so much either way. One line of the Apostles creed has as many as 17 different accepted interpretations all considered orthodox. The idea is, they reduce the message of all scripture to a few basic points we can agree on. Yes, they are dogmatic. Everybody is dogmatic about something, but the creeds keep our dogma focused on Christ, who he is, and what he has done for us. No theories of atonement or practical steps for a healthy marriage. Just the bare minimum that all Christians have historically agreed upon.

    Like

  20. “Take, for instance, the seminary student who discovers that one theological system has all the answers he’ll ever need. All he needs is to buy the books, go to the conferences and check the websites. In more than a few cases, it would be best if he simply stopped his education and went home until he’s willing something to learn again. While he’s certain that he’s right, and he’s correcting his professors and working to overthrow any teacher who doesn’t subscribe to his hobby horse theological system, he’s useless as a student and probably off balance as a human being.”

    I know this person. If the Apostle Paul had known him too he would have added a verse to 1 Corinthians 13, to read: “If I have excruciatingly correct theology so as to prove others wrong, but have not love, I am nothing.”

    Like

  24. “The fact is that I’m as theologically opinionated as the next person, but I’m more impressed with Jesus than I am those who write, talk and preach about him.”

    I like that.

    Like

  25. Am I standing on my own trap door when I say “Jesus isn’t identical to anyone’s theology and someone says “Without theology, who or what is Jesus?”

    Answer: No. There is nothing we need to know about who Jesus is that isn’t well summarized in the creeds, imo. We all stand together on those, and what unites us in their teaching is so much stronger than what divides us.

    Like

  27. About a month ago I was talking about why I study theology with my brother, and I told him that the first principle of theology is, “I am wrong. Jesus is right.” He looked surprised and said, “I’ve never heard that before.”

    I pointed out he’s not the only one; I’ve met professional theologians who’ve never heard that before. Certainly they don’t teach it. Most of us come from the direction of, “I’m right, because I follow Jesus and Jesus is right.” Somehow we got the idea that the renewing of our minds took place at salvation, or shortly thereafter; that it’s not a lifelong process, and that our sinful nature never gets in the way and twists Jesus’s teachings into palatable selfish conclusions–why, the Holy Spirit would never allow such a thing.

    Or that He’s anointed certain theologians, like John Calvin, to restore His original teachings, Joseph Smith style, and all we have to do is follow them.

    No, no, no. “I am wrong. Jesus is right.” ‘Nuff said.

    Like

Leave a comment