Not Knowing All the Answers

Sometimes theology is seen as a matter of knowing all the answers to all the questions. It is frequently also seen as taking a dogmatic stand on every detail. Now I do not want to deny there are certain basic truths of the Christian faith that we need to stand for. If Christianity has nothing definite to say, we need to board up our church buildings and stay home on Sunday. But one of the reasons for the many divisions in the Christian church is that we feel we must have a definite answer for every detail and must separate from everyone who disagrees. How then do we decide what those basic issues are we need to stand for? I am convinced that Scripture itself gives us guidance here. It speaks of the need to hold firm on such things as the nature of God (Deuteronomy 13:1-4; Isaiah 43:10-13; Exodus 20:3-6); Christ (1 John 4:2,3; 2 Corinthians 11:4; 1 Corinthians 12:3), the sinfulness of humanity (1 John 1:8-10; Psalms 14:1-3; Romans 3:23), the gospel (Galatians 1:8,9; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Romans 1:16,17), and the truth of the Word of God (John 17:17; Psalms 12:6,7; 2 Timothy 3:16,17). (This list is not meant to be exhaustive but illustrative, but I do not find there are more than a few basic truths that have this kind of emphasis.) But there are many other things we tend to fight over that have no such emphasis in Scripture.

In terms of those things, it is well to remember that Scripture repeatedly rebukes putting too much trust in human reason (1 Corinthians 3:18-20; 8:1-3; 1:20,21). This does not mean we should have no definite convictions. But it does mean we need to ask whether the secondary things we fight over are a matter of clear Scriptural teaching or just our opinion. I am not saying we should not have opinions on such things. But I have to ask whether these are clear-cut enough to be dividing over. It is my view that many of the things we divide over are Scripturally indifferent. But even if they are not, are they worth fighting over? In 1 Corinthians too much trust in our own wisdom is seen as the basis of divisiveness (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:21-23; 8:7-13). Could it be we need to examine some of the things we divide over to see, not only whether they are Scriptural, but whether they are worth it? And could it be that on some of these questions we need to admit to ourselves and others that we do not know the answers? For it is hard to miss the resemblance of the present day Christian church to the church at Corinth.

Attitude of Unity

One of the basic questions on promoting church unity, whether at the local or the global level, is one of attitude. Paul makes this clear in Philippians 2:1-11. The appropriate Christian attitude is putting other people before ourselves. This is the attitude shown by Christ, who is God and became a human being to save us from our sins. But too often in the church today we see people looking at things in terms of their needs and their plans and what they want. (I am speaking here of both leaders and congregational members.) It is easy to spiritualize this and say, I need to have my spiritual needs met, or, I am doing what I think God wants me to do. And I need to be careful here because there may be a legitimate basis for this. There are cases where it would be spiritually damaging or disobedient to God to go along with what others want or to uphold the status quo. But I think we are often too ready to assume our way is the right way and to approach issues based on what we want rather than how we can serve others. So I think we need to honestly ask before we push our needs or our program, are we really considered with God and the welfare of His people or with getting our own way?

Breaking the Laws of Nature

The idea that miracles break the laws of nature is based on questionable assumptions. The idea is that the laws of nature are running the universe by their own motive force. Therefore, for God to intervene in it and work a miracle is an unacceptable disruption. But does this fit the facts?

This is based on the idea of a deducible universe. It holds that the physical laws are like mathematics. In mathematics you start with certain basic intellectually obvious principles, such as 2 + 2 = 4. The rest of the system is than deduced from these principles. There may be difficult problems, but they are the necessary result of reasoning from the first principles. Are the physical laws like this? The problem with answering this is that, after centuries of looking, we still have not reduced the physical laws to first principles. But every indication is they are likely to be something complicated and not intellectually obvious, but only understandable by experts. But whatever the basic principles, it is difficult to believe that, under current theories, we could deduce the universe from it, even theoretically. There is quantum mechanics, which says that in very small objects, all we can know about their behavior is probabilities. It also holds to incomprehensible things, like something being a wave and a particle at the same time.  There is chaos theory, which says long range behavior can depend on small differences in an object's initial conditions. All this calls into question whether we ever will be able to deduce the universe from basic principles.

A better concept for comparison would be that of the alphabet. It too starts with small elements which are arranged according to certain rules. But these rules are broad principles and do not determine  the final product. We cannot start with the alphabet and deduce Shakespeare's plays. Now it is not surprising that an orderly God would produce an orderly universe. Also, we need that order to function. It would be hard to live in a world where there was no discernible order. But it is also not surprising that when we examine it closely, it becomes probabilities and mysteries. The result is less like a machine and more like a poem. There needs to be a basic order for there to be a poem, or at least a comprehensible poem. But every line is from the Poet and none have an independent existence. And the Poet can vary the order of the poem to produce the effect He desires. He is not interfering with the poem, but adding to it the important variations that help explain the poem as a whole. But the Poet is not limited to working in variations, but every line of the poem is His composition and works to accomplish His purpose. Also, God's poem contains independent beings: angels, demons, and human beings, who contribute to the poem by their actions. But there never was any question of shutting the Poet out.

A Touch of Humor - Suspicion

 

Why should we be careful as Christians of jumping to conclusions too quickly? How do we avoid this?

Old Erich Proverb - Mold

God does not want to press us all into the same mold, but to change us into the particular people He intends us to be.

A Voice from the Past - Spurgeon

Slippery as the way is, so that I walk like a man upon ice, yet faith keeps my heels from tripping, and will continue to do so. The doubtful ways of policy are sure sooner or later to give a fall to those who run therein, but the ways of honesty, though often rough, are always safe. We cannot trust in God if we walk crookedly; but straight paths and simple faith bring the pilgrim happily to his journey's end.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 1834-1892, The Treasury of David, Vol. 1, Psalm XXVI (Hendrickson Publishers, p. 416)

What do we need to do to avoid living crookedly? How do we do it in a crooked world?

Interpreting 1 John

Interpreting the book of 1 John is a difficult proposition. It seems to be saying that Christians cannot sin (1 John 2:3-6; 3:4-10; 5:18). Scripture should be explained in the simplest way possible. But I cannot reconcile this obvious reading with the rest of Scripture (Philippians 3:12-16; 2 Corinthians 7:9,10; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20) or even the rest of 1 John (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1,2; 5:16,17). Nor does it accord with my experience or that of any other Christian I have known well. Further, 1 John does not picture this as a higher experience, but the normal experience of every Christian. Those who take this view of the book almost always end up qualifying it. They speak of absence from intentional sin or major sin, but there is nothing in the context or the rest of Scripture that invites such a qualification. Further, this approach is highly subjective because we can convince ourselves that our actual sins really were not intentional or major. Apart from clear instruction from Scripture, it is hard to know where to draw the line. Now the verbs here are in present tense in Greek, which implies a continuous or customary action. I think this is part of the answer, but it does not solve the problems with this solution. 

One can see these passages as referring to the new nature of the Christian given by God. This is often coupled with the idea that Christians are at any point in time either totally in the new nature or in the old nature. This does not fit with the teaching of Scripture that growth in Christ is a process (1 Timothy 4:7,8; Hebrews 5:11-14; 12:1,2). It also makes the commandments of the New Testament irrelevant, as we need only be in the new nature and everything else will follow. This is reading in things not found in the passages involved.

The broader context of the book is written against false teachers (1 John 2:18-24; 4:1-6; 5:1). One of their  claims appears to be, you can be a Christian and live however you want (1 John 2:25-29; 5:2-5; 1:5-7). When they claimed to be without sin (1 John 1:8-10), they were not claiming they were morally perfect, but that nothing they did should count as sin. Therefore John (using the present tense with its implications in Greek) is drawing a contrast between two ideas of Christianity. He is not saying that Christians must be perfect, but that there should be a real change in their lives, and that those who claim Christians do not have to live in obedience to God are wrong. This fits with the fact that the epistle does advocate assurance (1 John 5:11-13; 4:15-18; 2:12-14), which would be dubious if it depended on our reaching some high level of holiness. This also fits with the rest of Scripture (Titus 2:11-14; 2 Peter 2:7,8; James 1:21-25). And fits with the reality that Christianity is a growth process, not immediate perfection.