In the previous couple of posts I have given some examples of the spiritual decay that we recently observed in the churches of our youth. A generation ago most leaders in these churches would have understood and shared our current grief and serious concerns. The common reactions in the same churches now are dismissal, apathy, and anger. A few of our closest friends have been willing to listen and to be challenged in their thinking and -after months- begin to slowly understand what we are saying and why we are concerned.
What happened? How is it possible that so many leaders of these churches -whom we saw as pillars of the church- are now following -or even leading- the flocks into the ravine? Over the years, they have begun to think differently; a slow but persistent paradigm shift. The denomination seems to have been transformed from a fairly closed group of churches that tried to see the world from the apostolic perspective into a significant group that seeks to be contemporary and relevant for today's culture and hence tries to read and interpret the apostolic writings in a way that must facilitate this goal.
What we noticed (after twenty four years in Canada and eight years in China) is that certain new convictions have become established in the popular mindset. These convictions are often expressed as metaphores or slogans that appear attractive against the backdrop of the pillarized, ethnocentric past. I want to briefly discuss seven of these 'spiritual viruses' as we have observed and experienced them during our three years in our 'old country'.
What do I mean, then, with 'spiritual viruses'? They are metaphores and slogans that have gone viral in the churches (have become popular and widely appreciated), have become lodged into the minds of the church leaders and members, with the result of a serious impairment in spiritual discernment in the whole denomination.
1. "We must not judge!"
Marioka and I had been appointed small group (or "cell-groep") leaders in our church. In the first three or four meetings it happened somewhere in the discussion after I had said something that sounded controversial, that one older brother would shout: "You are judging! You are judging, Aize!" If I would try to explain my statement, he would stop me abruptly, by repeating this behavior. After the first meeting, when this happened again, I would reply by saying: "So, is that your judgment of what I am doing?" or "Are you judging me for saying this?" (It did not help. Only after I had invited him for a coffee and explained him who I am was this problem resolved.)
Also, when I was an elder, the chairman of the self-appointed "spiritual management council" told me I was judging. In none of these cases where I was accused of judging was I judging in the sense of rashly condemning somebody personally or declaring that he was not a Christian. No, the 'judging' that was opposed in this way was the expression of spiritual discernment, to distinguish between what is according to the Scriptures and what is not.
As Don Carson so clearly describes in his book "The Intolerance of Tolerance", Tolerance has become the highest virtue, and it no longer means allowing other people to express their personal opinion, but that we may not criticize or oppose the expression of an opinion that deviates from the popular concensus.
The obvious (?) consequence of this attitude is that the church leaders may no longer discern between good and evil in doctrine or in life. Paul writes to the Ephesians (read: "The Holy Spirit speaks to the church of all times and places) that we must stand firm against the schemes of the devil and his evil spirits. If the church adopts as motto "We may not judge" in the meaning as described above, it capitulates to Satan by taking off the armour of God.
2. "The Bible is a difficult book."
When I started to write critical material about the current tolerance towards the "new hermenutic" (read the post: Shelob's Web), few people replied. I was thankful for the openness of the pastor's wife, however, when she expressed her concern about a growing separation in our ways of thinking. Her response was: "But, Aize, the Bible is a very difficult book!"
At the surface this, too, may look like an innocent remark. Christians, even Christians who truly seek to submit to the Word of God, do not agree on every aspect of the biblical teaching. Yet, diligent study and comparing passages do result in a great concensus among the church of all times and places. In the past we have too readily assumed that the infallibility of Scripture could be transposed to our presumed infallibility to our church's understanding of the Scriptures. But now, in step with the paradigm shift in western thinking, many have succumbed to relativism. In spiritual terms this is expressed along these lines: "X says he is a Christian. So, we should respect him as a Christian and celebrate that fact, rather than discern if X's views and actions line up with the apostolic teaching." and "On this partuclar passage we find different interpretations among the pastors in our churches. Therefore, we must humbly accept that the passage is unclear and tolerate the different views existing."
Don Carson points out (with reference to an article by Michael J. Ovey) that Satan has used this scheme already for centuries. Of course there are issues on which we must admit "I don't understand it", but when we insist "This is unclear" it quickly takes on the meaning "Nobody can understand this." Once that virus takes hold, it effectively labels anybody who does claim to understand it as a bigot and if it is applied to a biblical passage, it eliminates the biblical authority.
3 The Final Act
To see the biblical story as an unfolding drama has been a helpful metaphor. It reminds us that throughout and behind the books of the Bible there is one story. It is the story of creation, fall, and redemption. Tom Wright wrote about it, and then Goheen and Bartholomew expanded on this metaphor by suggesting we are part of the final act; we have the task to embody God's Kingdom here and now.
But in some circles this was further modified to suggest that the current age is significantly different than the age of Peter and Paul. What these apostles thought and wrote in their times gives us some insight into the intentions of God, but it is up to us to see what and how we can or should use from their writings for the church today.
Imagine, we find a formerly unkown Shakesperean drama. It was never finished; the last act is missing. It is our task to write the final act. The author is dead (!), but he has left us with the first five acts, and it is up to us to use this material to construct the final act.
At this stage we have opened the door to the new hermeneutic. The apostolic teaching is no longer normative, because the apostles were mere men, trying to make sense of God's will in the context of their culture.
The Bible can be seen as a Tom-Tom. If we rely on it, we will at times get lost or stuck in a dead-end road. We must face the reality that the cultural landscape today is different from what it was in Bible times. We cannot rely on it for daily life; we must carefully discern its applcability for the new age. (article in a regional church paper, by a GKv pastor)
4 "God would never do that!"
Around the time that the GKv synod was discussing the issue of "women in office", I overheard a colleague at our Reformed school: "I cannot imagine that God would care if there's a man in the pulpit or a woman!" I resisted the temptation of challenging her, but I wondered. Is your imagination based on knowledge of God? How well do you know the will of God? Is this knowledge rooted in a rigorous study of the Bible? If this "idea" of the will of God is not derived from such a study, then where does it come from? From other people or from your personal preference or from other spirits that whisper into your ears at night?
I have a friend who did a fairly extensive study in a GKv religion in education program. He told me he was beginning to doubt how much of the Bible is the Word of God. "Do you know how cruel and horrific it is to stone somebody?", he asked me. I had no experience and I had not read about the experiences of others. Well, my friend had come to realize how terrible it was to die such a death. And, when he noticed how often the Old Testament prescribed it as a punishment for sin, he was apalled. "God would never do that!"
I concluded that my friend could not conceive of a sin so terrible that would warrant such a punishment. Was it possible that he did not know God as an just and angry God, Who would get furious if one of his creatures would willingly set out to destroy something beautiful which He had just made? Is it not God's fury about such sins that brought Him to sacrifice Himself in his Son to the horrible punisment of crucifixion?
Upon further questioning, it turned out that he saw God as the image of anybody, based on his own feelings, experiences, and thoughts. In the end, the Bible had little to do with it.
5 "We know more than Paul."
During our stay in Holland, this slogan became increasingly popular. A theology professor at the GKv seminary was instrumental in its propagation. I paraphrase two examples.
A recent scientific study shows that drinking wine causes cancer. Paul suggests to Timothy that he ought to drink a little wine. If Paul had known what we know, he would not have given that advice. So, we'd better be careful in how we apply the recommendations othe apostles.
The Bible may call homosexual living (where a man lies with another man) "an abomination", but current research has helped us to understand the true nature of homosexuality. If Paul had lived today among us, he would have agreed that there are good and beautiful ways in which two people can live in a homesexual relationship! We must show the love of God and embrace such people too!
Of course there are areas in life on which we may know more today than Paul would have known about two thousand years ago. Yet, if that becomes our slogan, we treat the Bible as any historical document, written by people with their own shortcomings and biases. We no longer see it as the infallible Word of God. We no longer accept the fact that God, through His Spirit, made sure that the apostles wrote the things that He wanted to convey to the church of all times and places.
Men, like Melle Oosterhuis, chairman of the recent GKv Synod get very sad or angry when people state that they no longer submit to the authority of Scripture. In their view, the church throughout the ages has always interpreted the Bible in the way they understood it in their time and culture. They claim that nothing changed, except that we are now conscious of our own biases.
Time will tell. Those who truly follow Christ will grow in godliness. Those who claim to follow Christ yet interpret His Word in ways compatible with the insights and agendas of the godless world they live in, they will continue to drift away from God's Word and godly living.
to be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment