Tuesday, July 28, 2009

polemic

We are flooded with instant information these days via the internet and it seems most of it is worth what we pay for it - nothing. With this spate of information comes an overwhelming source of unqualified critics - especially among Christians. While I understand some of the motivation, I like DA Carson's words on Polemical Theology.

... there is something wrong-headed about making polemical theology the focus of one’s theological identity. This can be done in many ways. There are well-known scholars whose every publication has an undertone of “everyone-has-got-this-wrong-before-me-but-here-is-the-true-synthesis.” Some become far better known for what they are against than for the overflow of their worship or for their generosity to the needy or even for their affirmation of historically confessed truth. Still other Christians develop websites and ministries whose sole aim is to confute error. God knows there is plenty of error to confute. To make the refutation of error into a specialized “ministry,” however, is likely to diminish the joyful affirmation of truth and make every affirmation of truth sound angry, supercilious, self-righteous—in a word, polemical. In short, while polemical theology is just about unavoidable in theory and should not, as a matter of faithfulness, be skirted, one worries about those who make it their specialism.

Amen. On the other hand, ultimately, as much as postmoderns would like otherwise, the Kingdom of God is not all inclusive. In the end, there will be some that Jesus didn't know and who will be separated from God for eternity. Our joy, like God's, is not to exclude, but in the light of this knowledge, our heart is to include on the basis of Truth.

Carson notes:

. . . any robust theology that wounds and heals, that bites and edifies and clarifies, is implicitly or explicitly engaging with alternative stances. In a world of finite human beings who are absorbed in themselves and characterized by rebellion against God, polemical theology is an unavoidable component of any serious theological stance, as the Bible itself makes clear.

Re-read Galatians. Within the space of six short chapters, Paul can be indignant with his readers, but he can also plead with them. He openly admits he wishes he could be present with them so he could better judge how he should adjust his tone. He can be scathing with respect to his opponents, precisely because he wants to protect his readers; he can devote several paragraphs to clarifying and defending his own credibility, not least in demonstrating that his core gospel is shared by the other apostles, even though he insists he is not dependent on them for getting it right. He happily connects his theological understanding to ethical conduct. All of this suggests that a mature grasp of the potential of polemical theology wants to win and protect people, not merely win arguments.

Amen again. Running from arguments is wrong. At the same time making the winning of arguments our objective is equally wrong. We desire to participate in God's redemptive work and in that we must demonstrate and proclaim the truth of the Gospel.

HT for Carson's words:JT

2 comments:

Geoff Matheson said...

Our joy, like God's, is not to exclude, but in the light of this knowledge, our heart is to include on the basis of Truth.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What does it look like to "include on the basis of Truth"?

ricki said...

Good question. I'll take a stab at some disjointed thoughts but there's a lot here. This will likely not be comprehensive and will likely be tainted in light of our other conversation.

- I think there is an eternal difference between loving, respecting, honoring, caring for, etc. those that are growing in the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ and those who are not. Either way we honor them both because of who we are and who they are but the interaction is different.
- We are not evangelized in our communities of faith by unbelievers.
- Communities of believers must be safe but never comfortable. That is love must rule but growth needs to flow from that. This inevitably leads to some level of discomfort but should not lead to condemnation. Communities of unbelievers need to lead to a sense of not being safe. They must ultimately repent and confess their rejection of God.
- Many espousing inclusion these days are Christian Universalists. They are heretics and are practicing false inclusion. They are not leading people in need to the God of the Bible. They are erring in the same manner they accuse those that they are reacting to, i.e., they are creating their own God with their own belief system and then claiming they are not setting up beliefs thereby including rather than excluding. Theirs is a false inclusion and they exclude true believers.
- One key truth is the knowledge that God does not wish for any to perish. This properly interpreted is highly motivational and gives right intent. The goal isn't a loving community, it is a community glorifying God. They may in many senses look and feel the same but they are an eternity apart.

reftagger