So here is an interesting little side track from our former trajectory... But it is something that has "emerged" (you might see the pun later) out of the discussion.
So, my whole life I have asked questions. Drove my mom nuts. In fact she may still be in therapy! (just kidding)
I have an insatiable desire to know - well, everything. It is more than just I want to be a life long learner. I have a driving passion to get to the thing below the thing. It drives my wife crazy at times too. And I get it. What would it be like to be married to someone who is analyzing every move you make, every word you speak, and the infinite meanings to the combinations of those 2 things. It has to be exhausting. So, as I know that my amazing wife will be reading this, I want to say that I am sorry.
That being said, asking me to not analyze is like asking me not to breath. I can't help it. So, I won't stop analyzing. I can't!
That leads me to my thought for this post...
Why is it that if I am asking questions of some things about American religion I begin to get labeled as part of certain schools of theological thought or certain "emergent" groups that are asking similar questions?
Why is it so important to know what my particular doctrinal school is? And why would anyone assume that I can fit into one? And how can we assume that ANYONE would fit into just one theological system?
I mean, honestly, why do people work so hard to resolve these questions that have no simple answers?
For example, how old is the earth? And if I admit that the earth is in fact older than 6,000 years, am I an evolutionist? What if I think maybe the earth is over millions of years old? Do I not love God enough to believe what none of us were there to see?
How does God expect me to treat "those" people? whoever they may be...
Why does God allow suffering? I mean REALLY! No trite answers here please!
What if I disagree with Piper or Driscoll on a theological issue? And heaven forbid that I would agree with Rob Bell! I recently heard someone call N.T. Wright (who is one of the greatest theological minds of our time) a "waste of human flesh." Really? because you disagree with him? THAT is the label he gets?
A few years ago I read an awesome article written by Tony Campollo called "Where are all the liberal scholars?" His point, and I think a valid one, was that we don't have any voices in the church world that challenge the status anymore. Dobson says all there is to know about family. Piper says all there is to know about theology. And Swindoll still is the final word on preaching. And we only put up with Rick Warren because you can't argue with how many copies of Purpose Driven Life were sold.
Don't get me wrong. I have read all these guys on these very issues. And I believe that what they say has great depth. But they are just a few of the great voices that should be at the table. Why can't a Tony Jones or Rob Bell influence the over all conversation on a topic? We just might find that none of us knew as much as we thought we did.
And maybe that is the point. That we want to know that we know. So, we are constantly pushing towards resolution of things. Sermon, books, conversations, small groups - all these try to push us to resolution. And yet, when we are honest with ourselves, it didn't work.
There are multiple reasons why that might be true, but I want to address a couple. First, anytime you resolve something for someone, you take away their need to think about it anymore. Consider how Jesus taught. He leaves this open ended story that raises more questions than it answers, and then puts a hint in it (this is called a remez and it is found in everyone of Jesus' parables) but doesn't tell you where it is (except that we know it is in the text), so you have to start digging for it.
Jesus resolved almost nothing. but drove people to the Word and to their knees. And my experience has been that real teaching that inspires and compels us to grow up in our faith becomes the first word of many more words on a topic. It is never the final word on anything.
Second, God's Word, which is full of wonder and mystery, leaves so many questions. From creation to how things are going to end, it raises WAY more questions than it answers.
And it seems that God likes leaving these questions there. In fact, if you look at the people that God loves to use, they are often not the ones who have the best answers, but those who are asking better questions. So, why is it that if a person begins asking questions, they immediately get the "liberal" or "compromise" label attached to them?
What have I compromised? And where have I been so liberal?
Jesus was 12 at the temple and the text says that He was sitting with the rabbis and asking them questions. And all the people marveled at His wisdom. We often see the one asking questions as the one who is the uninformed. Jewish thought sees this the exact opposite. It is the better question that reveals that we have wrestled this through to a place to stand.
Here is my conclusion today... If being conservative means that I have to uphold a certain dogma and that I can never let people see the questions that I wrestle with pertaining to the lines of thinking I have been given, then I do not want to be conservative. But for that matter, I don't want to be liberal either. And I don't want to be emergent or traditional, or reformed, or neoreformed, or denominational or non-denominational. And I don't want to be fundamentalist or dogmatic. But I don't want to be a person who compromises my convictions either.
I guess when it all gets boiled down, I don't want to be labeled by people who are trying to stick me in a box that they are comfortable with so that they can believe that they know things about me without taking the time to really get to know me. And while I could really tout how they are missing out, I feel like I am the one who gets robbed. I miss out on getting to know them as well. And that is what hurts deeper. That they won't let me truly know them.
I will always continue to ask questions. It is just who I am. And the idea that there are folks out there that won't be comfortable with that makes me sad.
If being a fundamentalist means that I have to adhere to a preset group of dogmas without questioning or challenging them, then I will never be fundamentalist. Nor do I want to be. But that doesn't make me liberal or emergent either. Not only are these not the only options, but they aren't options at all in my mind. I am just me. trying to live out my created design in the most God centered way possible. Hopefully, we can all find Jesus in the midst of that.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteThe box issue. My belief is that people can only hold a few things in their mind at a time (some say that number is 7). Given that limitation, we stive to distil something (or someone) down to a minimal number, so that they can be able to understand that person (or thing) based on the box that they have already built, without having to build a brand new box for everyone they meet. Now that said, I'm not saying it is either good or bad, just a way of dealing with a lot of information at once. You say "a car" when you actually mean "a vehicle with four wheels, doors, engine, that is painted white, and has a wheel that allows me to control it's direction, and levers on the floor where I control the speed with" you get the point.
The issue of the scholars, I think has more to do with laziness or something like it. If someone comes up with a theory that sounds good, why should I go to all the work to determine if it is correct? If I do all the scholarly research to try to prove someone wrong, and it turns out I'm wrong, I get no glory for it, so why bother.
Richard B. Link
I now regret my comments, or at least how I worded them. I had no intent to label anyone or put anyone in a box. For lack of a better way to describe it, I just saw what I perceived as lingo/jargon that I, in my experience, had only seen in writings of some authors that openly identify with what they call emergent/emerging church. I was curious and so I commented as I did. I am truly sorry if you felt labeled as part of certain schools of theological thought or as part of the emergent movement. I don't like labels either, but I guess I was just thinking of how the different things I have read have had impact or influence on the way I think...and wondering what had impacted your thinking. Sorry I presented it the way I did. And I guess I misinterpreted the emergent stuff "going the way of the buffalo" as no longer relevant or dying out...when it seems to keep popping up recently among people that I know. I'll stop commenting and just read your series now.:)
ReplyDeleteDustin, there is no need to apologize. And you are certainly not the first, not even during this series, that has tried to fit my thoughts in a theological box. I think it touches a nerve for me that I have had a hard time defining for some time. This just gave me the opportunity to write about it.
ReplyDeleteWe are good. And I am honored that you would read any of this. Hopefully, we can find a better version of Jesus living in both of us through this process.
Thanks, I'm glad we are good and I do hope for a better version of Jesus in us.
DeleteFor the record: I don't place you in a theological box, or accuse you of compromise, or being liberal. From my way of seeing it(and maybe you disagree and that's fine), I don't think any of us arrive at how we see things totally independently or fall into a definable box. I've been influenced by many things I've heard or read from many different perspectives/people that do indentify with a label/people that hate labels/and so on. If I said something, and someone said,"that sounds like you were influenced by G.K. Chesterton(or insert any person or theological category here) stuff", I hope I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't mean that I only fit in a G.K. Chesterton theological box unless it was clear that they had me "boxed". I hope this explains better where I was coming from.
Hopefully everyone that would like to can say things without it assumed to be accusatory or extending well beyond what was stated. And I do understand that you were responding to some people in addition to me, but it's hard to tell what's what when I was the only one on this blog that commented relating to your blog post above(unless I missed something).
I am very confident that you have a very unique perspective...and I have learned a LOT from listening to and reading what you bring to the table. I appreciate that you say exactly what your thinking. I appreciate that you, as a pastor/leader/coach, "put yourself out there", so to speak, in a real way that few do(in my opinion). I understand that that leaves you vulnerable to certain types of unfair criticism and I don't fault you for responding to such criticism.
So, I think out loud frequently, and sometimes in the light of day, my thoughts don't look so good. I've been thinking about my statement about the "great thinkers" issue. While I knew this before, It was not in the forefront of my thoughts yesterday. We all have our role to play, and it's not all the same. If all we all wanted to play quarterback, the team would quickly lose. Specialization is what makes us better. If I specialize in one area and spend my time digging and ferreting out all the information in that area, I can shed light on the issue from that point of view. And I can trust someone else is doing that in an area that I can't, and thereby enlightening me in that discipline. While that is not to say that there shouldn't be discourse inside the fields, and that there are more than one expert in that specific area, as that is what encourages growth. Examining your ideas, and helping others examine theirs....
ReplyDeleteOk, enough rambling.
Richard B. Link
Glad to hear this from an RLM brother. Met you briefly at DS1 in May, but we need to talk more. Thanks for thinking out loud.
ReplyDelete