Don't misunderstand me I didn't have blind faith in people with degrees, books or popular pulpits. I had always known that you could never 100% fully trust everything any human said. We are all fallible, even the most brilliant of us. But when the experts guided me through my interpretations of Scripture to arrive at the theology I accepted... it all made sense, I could see it so clearly. But then I noticed something else... if an expert of an opposing theology guided me through the Scriptures I could (often, but certainly not always) see their point of view as well.
So... why was I choosing to listen to experts I had always chose to listen to? There were other writers and people who were obviously smart who I would allow to influence me but I never considered them to be on my "go-to-list" for real theological answers. Why had I always steered clear of the more post-modern or emerging Church guys like Rob Bell, Donald Miller or Brian McClaren? Probably because I knew where they would lead me! Why had I avoided writers whom I knew to be Methodists, or Pentecostals, or Presbyterians, Catholics or charismatics? Probably because I knew where they would lead me!
So... why was I choosing to listen to experts I had always chose to listen to? There were other writers and people who were obviously smart who I would allow to influence me but I never considered them to be on my "go-to-list" for real theological answers. Why had I always steered clear of the more post-modern or emerging Church guys like Rob Bell, Donald Miller or Brian McClaren? Probably because I knew where they would lead me! Why had I avoided writers whom I knew to be Methodists, or Pentecostals, or Presbyterians, Catholics or charismatics? Probably because I knew where they would lead me!
Also disturbing to me was a small list of brilliant writers who influenced me more than most of my so-called experts. G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolikien and C.S. Lewis... none of them were self-proclaimed theology experts but their writings (even, or should I say, especially their fiction) was filled with obviously beautiful, life-changing truth. And then Peter Kreeft, who I had long respected as a genius Christian apologist. All of them (except for Lewis) were Catholic, and even Lewis was "more Catholic" than I liked to admit. Why should I not listen to their answers to my theological questions? Why were they necessarily wrong?
It was like I was in a crowded noisy middle school cafeteria, with everyone sitting at their different lunch-tables. Except, unlike my middle-school life, everyone was calling out for me to sit at their lunch-table! How was I to decide? If you haven't found yourself in this dizzying position of competing truth-claims consider the accounts of two authors better than me. The first is Jennifer Fulwiler from the blog Conversion Diary...
I wasn’t coming up with much so I Googled around to see what Christians had to say about it. And I found as many different opinions as I found people, everyone offering Bible verses to back up their claims. Each person stated their interpretation confidently as a fact — yet they contradicted one another. When I looked up the verses they cited in my own Bible, sometimes I felt they were right-on, other times I felt they were taken out of context, and other times I didn’t even know what the context was (e.g. some Old Testament verses where I just had no idea what was going on).
What frequently happened when I was looking for Biblical answers to my ethical dilemmas was that I’d read two contradictory opinions from two different Christians. I’d decide that Christian #1 made the best case based on Scripture, so I had my answer. But then Christian #2 would come back with a new verse that I’d never seen before that shed new light on it, and then I’d think his case must be the right one. And then Christian #1 would come up with yet another verse and I’d think he had the right answer. And then…well, you get the idea. It seemed that in order to form my own opinion about any of these issues I’d have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible to make sure I didn’t miss anything.[1]
Another admission of this difficulty hit me when I read a book by Robert Sungenis who mentioned a book similar to one that had greatly troubled me a few years earlier. He put my vague fears into words...
In a 1987 book titled Five Views of Sanctification, each of five Evangelical theologians presented their views of sanctification and were subsequently critiqued by the other four. After reading the various contrasting views and counter views, one's head swims in a sea of confusion. The book is one of the most amazing testimonials to the havoc private interpretation has wrought upon Christendom. [2]
It was if I had my choice of many, many wilderness guides to guide me through the jungle. However, I knew, up front, that each one would take me to a different location on the other side of the jungle. Anyone of the knowledgeable guides could take me wherever I wanted to go, but I would have to decide ahead of time (and often against the advice of all of the other guides) which location was best before I even left or selected a guide.
I suddenly realized that my guides were only guiding me to the theology I had accepted because I had hired them to. And what on earth did I know? What good was it having a theological expert, if, in reality, I trumped their decisions before we even left our base camp by selecting the place I wanted to go? I had already decided where I was going to go, I just had to wait around for them to get me there.
Suddenly, after thinking this big thought, I saw that I was surrounded by a cacophony of experts and, simultaneously, I felt very, very alone. I no longer thought that I could consistently trust any of the experts. I was going to have to go into the jungle alone and find my own way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jennifer Fulwiler, Conversion Diary, Article Why I'm Catholic.
[2] Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone. pp601. 1997, Queenship Publishing.
It was like I was in a crowded noisy middle school cafeteria, with everyone sitting at their different lunch-tables. Except, unlike my middle-school life, everyone was calling out for me to sit at their lunch-table! How was I to decide? If you haven't found yourself in this dizzying position of competing truth-claims consider the accounts of two authors better than me. The first is Jennifer Fulwiler from the blog Conversion Diary...
I wasn’t coming up with much so I Googled around to see what Christians had to say about it. And I found as many different opinions as I found people, everyone offering Bible verses to back up their claims. Each person stated their interpretation confidently as a fact — yet they contradicted one another. When I looked up the verses they cited in my own Bible, sometimes I felt they were right-on, other times I felt they were taken out of context, and other times I didn’t even know what the context was (e.g. some Old Testament verses where I just had no idea what was going on).
What frequently happened when I was looking for Biblical answers to my ethical dilemmas was that I’d read two contradictory opinions from two different Christians. I’d decide that Christian #1 made the best case based on Scripture, so I had my answer. But then Christian #2 would come back with a new verse that I’d never seen before that shed new light on it, and then I’d think his case must be the right one. And then Christian #1 would come up with yet another verse and I’d think he had the right answer. And then…well, you get the idea. It seemed that in order to form my own opinion about any of these issues I’d have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible to make sure I didn’t miss anything.[1]
Another admission of this difficulty hit me when I read a book by Robert Sungenis who mentioned a book similar to one that had greatly troubled me a few years earlier. He put my vague fears into words...
In a 1987 book titled Five Views of Sanctification, each of five Evangelical theologians presented their views of sanctification and were subsequently critiqued by the other four. After reading the various contrasting views and counter views, one's head swims in a sea of confusion. The book is one of the most amazing testimonials to the havoc private interpretation has wrought upon Christendom. [2]
It was if I had my choice of many, many wilderness guides to guide me through the jungle. However, I knew, up front, that each one would take me to a different location on the other side of the jungle. Anyone of the knowledgeable guides could take me wherever I wanted to go, but I would have to decide ahead of time (and often against the advice of all of the other guides) which location was best before I even left or selected a guide.
I suddenly realized that my guides were only guiding me to the theology I had accepted because I had hired them to. And what on earth did I know? What good was it having a theological expert, if, in reality, I trumped their decisions before we even left our base camp by selecting the place I wanted to go? I had already decided where I was going to go, I just had to wait around for them to get me there.
Suddenly, after thinking this big thought, I saw that I was surrounded by a cacophony of experts and, simultaneously, I felt very, very alone. I no longer thought that I could consistently trust any of the experts. I was going to have to go into the jungle alone and find my own way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jennifer Fulwiler, Conversion Diary, Article Why I'm Catholic.
[2] Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone. pp601. 1997, Queenship Publishing.
Both of these posts were fun reads. The repetitive use of the word "expert" in the last paragraph of part 1 made me laugh out loud.
ReplyDeleteWas Mark Driscoll on your A-list at all? He seems to be the popular guy, right now.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI think you've made some noteworthy observations; two in particular stand out, to which I'll add my own opinion (for what it's worth). You wrote:
"I no longer thought that I could consistently trust any of the experts. I was going to have to go into the jungle alone and find my own way out."
Of course you cannot mean by this, based on your earlier statements, that you just intend to become one of the experts in order to join the chorus of opinions held by experts; in the end you're still the final authority, albeit a well informed one. In my own experience this is where I came face to face with a notion which I could not, for the life of me, fit into my Protestant paradigm. And it was the idea that there exists a true, conscience binding authority to whom I must submit not only my private interpretations of Sacred Scripture, but my very self. I also can relate to this comment:
"...none of them were self-proclaimed theology experts but their writings (even, or should I say, especially their fiction) was filled with obviously beautiful, life-changing truth."
Though my next reflection may not have the power of an apologetic 1-2 punch, it certainly was the case that I was captured by the beauty of Catholic theology. I remember it was around the time that the book The Shack hit the shelves and I was pulling my hair out (I was a Protestant enamored with orthodox trinitarian theology and The Shack seemed to be playing fast and loose with this doctrine that I held so dear) when I picked up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I started reading the Catechism's exposition of the Trinity. Not only was I struck by the beauty of the Church's teaching, but I discerned for perhaps the first time, the Church's self-understanding, that it had the mandate to proclaim this doctrine-as nuanced as it is-with true authority.
In the peace of Christ,
Casey
Hi David, I came across your blog today and wanted to respond to some of your thoughts here. Hope you don't mind. You said you don't want to listen to post-modern/emerging church, Methodists etc.. folks because they could lead you into their side. This makes it seem to me that you could be very easily persuaded if the argument sounded convincing enough. I have to wonder and ask what makes you think you won't be mislead by the convincing arguments by Roman Catholics too?
ReplyDeleteThe book is one of the most amazing testimonials to the havoc private interpretation has wrought upon Christendom. [2]
Also you should be careful whenever people try to discourage others for relying on the authority of Scripture to test the soundness of doctrines.
Finally, how do you know that the Roman Catholic church's interpretation of Scripture is right if you aren't allowed to interpret what you read? That is what I call "blind faith".
If you don't mind please check out Mike Gendron's website www.pro-gospel.org Thank you.
Sorry I "abandoned ship" for so long!
ReplyDeleteSeminarian asked...
"Was Mark Driscoll on your A-list at all? He seems to be the popular guy, right now."
- - I'm afraid he wasn't on my A-list, no. But that is due more to my lack of exposure to him than a conscious decision to avoid him.
Casey posted...
ReplyDelete"Of course you cannot mean by this, based on your earlier statements, that you just intend to become one of the experts in order to join the chorus of opinions held by experts; in the end you're still the final authority, albeit a well informed one."
- - You are correct, I did not mean that I really and truly should become an expert on experts (for then I would be but one more expert and subject to my own criticism). I meant the realization that I would have to be an expert on the experts is what I would have to be and even that wouldn't be enough is the thought that truly struck me.
- - And FWIW, I felt the same way about The Shack. Our congregation did a study on the book and it was all I could do to grit my teeth and bear through it without causing a huge commotion. How that book has favorably passed through what I used to think was a tough "biblicist firewall" has been a real shocker to me.
Mrs LB,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to post. You asked... "I have to wonder and ask what makes you think you won't be mislead by the convincing arguments by Roman Catholics too? "
- - I think that is a fair question and one I have wondered myself. On the surface, there is nothing that can prove (IMHO) 100% that the Catholic Church is any different than the cacaphony of Protestant voices on such issues. After all, I would have to be a "expert on Catholic experts" right? However there is something a little different about the Catholic take on it over against the (largely) Protestant take on it... or at least on the biblicist-evangelical take on things.
From what I have seen (and I am a minister within the biblicist-evangelical tradition), there is little to no conscious awareness of the issue. They simply quote expert after expert and overlook the problems of the multiplicity of interpretations among them (at least on the popular level... there are great scholars who try to address the problem). It simply is not addressed in a serious, meaningful way.
Within the Catholic framework however, the issues I have raised are nothing new or earth-shattering. It has long admitted that Scripture can be difficult to translate, dangerous for the individual to presume they have understood, and they have always know that no "expert" has a monopoly on the truth... as if college degrees or a publishing contract ensured truth.
It is this self-awareness (over and against the lack of it that I witness in my own tradition) that captures my interest and makes me think that perhaps the RCC does have an answer to this after all.
At least that is my take on it...