As my uncle once said:
History is like Shampoo. Lather, Rinse, Repeat
In being a student of the Bible, Christian history, portions of secular history, and the progression of major social and religious movements, I've come to see a common pattern at work in them all.
When a new movement is birthed, that movement is fluid and subject to change. That movement has a new paradigm, a new idea, a new way of thinking that addresses the fears, articulates the feelings, and gives a voice to the frustration of society which is felt toward the old system that is failing society and is becoming a hindrance to progress.
When the movement begins it is widely rejected by the masses, but as it fights for its position of belonging it becomes more and more received by those who were once its greatest adversaries.
What happens next? The new paradigm becomes THE PARADIGM
The second generation of the movement becomes dogmatic about the nature of what it was that there founders did. As society around them shifts beyond the reach of the initial movement, the movement must dig in its heels in order to preserve the purity of what was begun so long ago.
The generation's that follow the 2nd generation, only being farther removed from the time and culture that initiated the movement, finds themselves interpreting the founders of that movement with a great deal of diversity amongst themselves. And so, inevitably, there is a multitude of ways one interprets the intent of the founders, and schism will soon be the result.
Now of course, being a student of theology you may assume that I am speaking solely about Jesus and his disciples and subsequently the generations that followed known as the church, but we can apply this to any given movement in history.
For those who have read the Communist Manifesto you might find that in its day Marxism was a needed response to the social climate. As a man said to me recently however,
"Communism looks good on paper but I've never really seen it work."
How do we go from Karl Marx to the Khmer Rouge? How do we move from the vast majority of Communists being the clergy before the time of atheistic communism (Protestants and Jews to be a bit more detailed) to:
"I would like — and this would be the last and most ardent of my wishes — I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the entrails of the last priest"- Denis Diderot
How do we move from natural selection to eugenics?
How do we go from a community largely consisting of Jews with a Jewish leader to a long standing legacy of anti-Semitism?
As it applies to the bible:
The chronicled experience of the first century Christians is quite revealing. When I read the book of Acts, I am no longer convinced that what I am reading is the blue print for how to do church as I once believed.
Rather, I'm beginning to suspect that the movement was fluid. Concerning content, much of what the biblical writer’s record and say seem to suggest that there was harmony and continuity of their message, but how that message worked itself out among the people was largely reactionary. The early church was flying by the seat of their pants. That's not to say that they weren't intentional. That's not to say that they weren't wise in their decisions and abiding in reliance and contingence on the Holy Spirit through prayer. It is to say that though they shared the same message, the implementation of that message was not bound by a rigid method.
Let's take the doctrine of the bible as a further example. There are a series of doctrines that serve as a sort of cyclical self validation of the bible... from the bible. So we talk about having a closed canon (that is, what books are in and what books are out). We talk about the inspiration of the authors (that is, God is speaking through the authors). Now, these are all doctrines that were formulated much later than the passages we quote to build upon them (at least as it applies to the Protestant Bible - Old and New Testament combined). True, they have been formulated based on passages of scripture, but the packaging of those passages in such a fashion came much later (and I'm talking centuries later)
When I think on the life of Paul as presented by the New Testament for further example, I see a man who was very much admittedly flawed. I see examples of him making some serious mistakes in ministry in the book of Acts, such as his breaking of fellowship with Barnabas over a mutual ministry companion named Mark. I see that as a twofold failure. I do not believe Paul, upon further reflection (and definitely if he knew he was to be canonized!) would have said that he wished the agitators in the Galatian church would emasculate themselves.
Now, before you hear me wrong, allow me to say that I love the writings of Paul, but it's clear that his theology was built upon an understanding of his experience. What he thought it meant to be a Jew, to be a Pharisee, and to hold nationalistic hopes for Israel needed to be rethought in light of what Paul later came to know and witness. The questions Paul is answering for himself and to his audience is what does Israel, the Law, and the future now mean in light of the fact that the messiah has been crucified, risen, and has ascended? Paul's theology, flowing from his new reality, was the articulation of what we now call the Gospel narrative, and its further implications. What I mean by implications is how Paul instructs the churches under his care to deal with certain situations. Paul even distinguishes when he is giving advice as opposed to when he is communicating a portion of the Gospel or the demands on one's life the Gospel now lays claim.
But in subsequent generations Paul’s words became a formulation for ecclesiology as if our churches today, in hearing Paul's words, becomes the vicarious every-church that he was addressing. Rigid dogma came later and formulated a system of infallibility and inerrancy, which caused a demand for compliance should one want to continue in the fellowship of believers. We go on to accept everything done and said by the apostle Paul without contextual consideration, even to our detriment.
I understand that I have opened a can of worms here, and that some might want to ask "well where does it end? Where is the boundary of what is inspired and what is not? When you forfeit some you forfeit all, and you have just broken down the doctrine upon which all other doctrine is built."
I would respond by saying that I believe firmly that the Spirit indwells the community of believers. The scriptures tell us this. And if the Spirit is among the people, I believe that just as Paul spoke in context concerning different churches under his care, in light of the reality of the Gospel, we ought to be fluid in how we discern what our congregations are doing, decisions that we must make for our lives, the direction with which we must head, and how it is we relate to the world around and outside us.
Some might say that this is a spiritual approach in which any leader or group can say "I have a word from the Lord" and exploit others. Truth be told, I have seen just as much abuse taking place from "Bible believing, Bible preaching" churches as I have in Charismatic circles.
I feel that this is very important, because I believe the alternative (locking into rigid form), only serves to hinder the cause of Christ. I fear that it causes us to believe that because we have mastered a system of theology, we have mastered God. I fear that it causes us to believe that because we can preach on what it means to be a humble servant of God we ourselves have somehow become humble servants. And I fear that having done this, we have become very proud of our theology, which is exactly that... ours.
I've rambled enough. To say anymore would require another post.
Have I made my case, or have I spoken ambiguously? If my point is clear, what are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment