I have many Calvinist friends, which means that I frequently find myself embroiled in intensely intellectual conversations that tend to drift off into realms of abstract spirituality. One such conversation sticks out particularly in my mind. My friend asked me bluntly, "Are you a Calvinist?" When, after a long pause, I replied, "No," he pounced like a wolverine on a mouse--"Why not? Which of the five points do you disagree with?"
In that moment, I had an epiphany--I suddenly saw that, for my friend, the essence of Christianity was accepting certain propositions about God or men as true. I saw that, for him, the five points of Calvinism represented the boundaries of the gospel, making intellectual apprehension the key to the Kingdom. Finally, I saw that the key to my disavowal lay in my faith in the ultimate authority of Scripture.
As my vision cleared, I slowly formed a response. "Well, it's not that I disagree with any of the points in particular, though I probably would in some places. I'm not a Calvinist because I take issue with the whole idea of boiling the gospel down to a few propositions. It's not just Calvinism--it's Arminianism, and the 'Romans Road,' and the Four Spiritual Laws."
I could see the word "heretic" turning over in his mind, so I quickly sought to clarify myself. "Listen," I said, "you believe in the authority of Scripture, right?"
He nodded slowly, as I might when conversing with a five year-old.
I continued, grateful for some breathing room. "Well, so do I. I believe that God meant to give us a long, messy, paradoxical story about how he is redeeming a good world gone bad. I don't think He meant to write the Five Points, or the Four Laws, but just couldn't find the right phrasing. No, he gave us a story, because only a story requires empathy. He did not give us five propositions to agree with, or a four step formula to follow, but a story to join."
At this point, my friend seemed to recover his former confidence: "So, you're saying you don't think the Bible is true?"
I had to smile: "I believe the Bible is the true story of humanity. The power of the Bible does not rest in the fact that it outlines the nature of God, man, or sin with peculiar clarity, though it often does those things. The Bible carries the redemptive authority of God because it is the true account of how a perfect creation fell from grace and was redeemed by a sovereign God. Let me put it this way: Jesus on the Cross did not create some abstract, spiritual machinery by which men could be forgiven from abstract sins, and freed from immaterial punishment. On the Cross, Jesus confronted the powers of darkness that held sway over the world, took upon himself the evil intended for men, and in so doing, 'swallowed up death forever.'"
My friend seemed to choke on these thoughts for a moment, before asking, "Well, if the Bible isn't primarily something we understand, how can we make any sense of it for today?"
"Well, first, I don't think that systematic views of faith do a great job of making sense of the actual story presented in the Bible. Consider the sovereignty/free will debate: it seems abundantly clear to me that God's sovereignty and man's free choice are both key themes of the Bible. I don't know how you can read passages like Genesis 3, Isaiah 50, Ezekiel 16, Hosea 2, or Colossians 3 without some understanding of free will, any more than you can read Romans 8-9, or Ephesians 1 without an appreciation of God's sovereign choice. Systematic approaches to theology inevitably seem to trivialize one side of the issue, when the reality seems to be that they paradoxically work together.
"Beyond that, when we begin with the narrative revealed in Scripture, we can move towards its contemporary relevance without demeaning the fact of the historical work of God. When we see spirituality primarily in terms of timeless truths, we can have a hard time making sense of the flesh-and-blood reality of God's work. God does not deal principally with the abstract: he enters history, clothing principle in human events. Israel was not merely an example of a people who knew more about God than others; they were the vehicle by which God would bring redemption to all creation (cf. Gen. 12:3). Likewise, Jesus was not some spiritual technician, operating the abstract machinery of atonement; he was God come to earth to defeat the powers of darkness, restore humanity to fellowship with himself, and finally, renew all of creation.
"N. T. Wright suggests that we read the Bible like a play with the middle cut out--we have the beginning, and the very end (which occurs on earth, not in some spritual realm, cf. Rev. 21), and our job is to improvise the middle, directed and cued by the Holy Spirit. That means remaining faithful to the themes we see acted out in Israel's history and Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. We must seek to live out our vocation as the people of God, moving history towards the renewal and healing we see in Revelation."
At this point, I thought to end with some sympathy. "Listen, I don't hate Calvinism; in fact, I deeply sympathize with a lot of Calvinist thought. When it helps us identify the themes of the narrative, without stealing our attention from joining our daily lives to God's story, systematic theology can be helpful. It's just that, at its best, systematic theology is only commentary. It's like the editor's preface to a story: you only read it so you can move beyond it, to the story itself."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey buddy. I am not a huge fan of theological labels myself, but I had some thoughts/questions for you regarding your talk with your "dear Calvinist friend" whose world you rocked. I appreciate your thoughts and exhortation to look at the narrative of the Bible as a whole, and not try to overly simplify it by boiling it down to five points. However, let's not boil it down to merely a narrative either. I mean it’s not just a history book or a collection of poems, or biographies, and letters. It is God’s Word therefore it is also commands, warnings, encouragements, and yes even systems as much as our generation can hate those, (plan for tabernacle, order of greatest commandments, strategy for reaching world given to the first apostles). There is a process of salvation, which involves unchanging basics or essentials. Do you see salvation as merely an epiphany drawn from Biblical narrative?
You said that the Bible was the “true story of humanity”. I think that's right, but it’s not all and it’s not how I would say it. I would say the Bible is the true story of God revealing and expanding Himself throughout His creation. The creation, fall, redemption, and renewal are all parts of the story of His revelation to us. I mean I am not trying to start a man-centered/God-centered debate here. I am just pointing out that from the same narrative we both highlighted different over-arching themes. So having systematic theologies that we all can read has potential to hold our interpretations of Biblical narrative accountable. That is a good thing. I don't think we disagree on that necessarily. But how is what you are proposing not simply exchanging one label for another, Calvinist theology for narrative theology? We don’t read the story for the story’s sake alone but for what the story points us to, namely God. Stories do tell timeless truths and it’s not wrong to search for those while at the same time keeping the ability to enjoy the story and see its big picture.
The person who writes an essay on “racism” because of reading To Kill a Mockingbird hasn’t missed the point any more than someone who writes an essay on “coming of age in the rural south”. Both of them have approached the story from different angles, but as we talk about Scripture the stakes are raised. What makes one person’s accentuation of a given theme more valid than another?
A hermeneutical system has developed over centuries to give us help understanding God’s word. Creed and theologies are good in that they can open up to us the wisdom of the historical church which has wrestled with bringing Biblical truth to bear on our everyday lives long before “narrative theology” was a hot topic. Here me say this, we must be guided by the Spirit, and we must realize that a personal relationship with God though Jesus must be the joy and security of our lives. No system or formula can replace that. But formula in and of itself is not bad and I would argue that systematic theology is more helpful than simply being a “preface” which you can skip if you think you’re advanced enough to discover all the themes on your own. Instead, it’s like consulting the historical Christian community.
I think about all of this in the context of a recent debate I have been made aware of which involves the man you quoted, N.T. Wright. I have found many of Wright’s quotes thought provoking and well put. I haven’t read a complete book of his so please understand that I don’t know all of the facts on his position in this debate. I will relate what I have heard and if you know better then let me know.
The debate concerns a “new perspective” on Pauline theology in which the traditional view of the imputed righteousness of Christ and justification by faith is being challenged by Wright and others. The way it was put to me is that Wright sees the historical context of Jew/Gentile tension as the primary backdrop for Paul’s epistles and that Paul’s theology must be seen as primarily trying to mend that rift in the rival cultures. Thus, we can’t believe that Christ righteousness is imputed to us and that we are justified by faith. Instead, Paul is trying to level the spiritual playing field and so Jesus merely makes it possible for us to do good works and those good works are what we will be judged on. I probably haven’t stated the “new perspective” as well as someone who believes it, but the reason I bring it up is simple. It seems that the supposed historical context and intention which are up for debate weighs more in the interpretation of the “new perspective” that the words of Paul’s letters themselves. I mean certainly Paul had in mind the mending of Jewish/Gentile relations under Christ, but is that His primary aim? I don’t think you can go that far. He is concerned first about reconciling men to God and glorifying Christ by the gospel of the imputed righteousness of Jesus and justification by faith.
Enough rabbit trail. I think its good to confront someone who is overly dogmatic about Calvinism, but not at the expense of throwing out all systematic theology with the bath water. The Bible is a story, God’s story with systematic themes that arise and ought to be pointed out, studied, and discussed.
Post a Comment