CHAPTER FOUR: THE CHURCH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH INJUSTICE
June 8th, 2008 by Todd Johnson
The title of this chapter is the next objection some have against God and His Church. Many people who take an intellectual stand against Christianity do so against the backdrop of personal disappointment with Christians and churches.
If Christianity is all it claims to be, shouldn’t Christians on the whole be much better people than everyone else? That is a legitimate question, but just as legitimate is the fact that the church is filled with immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually. The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.
Fanaticism has also turned many off. But think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and His gospel, the gospel that says our righteousness is not our own but is the righteousness of Christ, leaving us no room for pride or boasting.
These thoughts and many others by Tim Keller underpin the reality that though the church has indeed been responsible for so much that is wrong, this doesn’t really discredit the truth about God, Jesus, the human dilemma, and the remedy that God has deposited in His Church (The pillar and ground of Truth – 1 Tim 3:15).
Whether you’re reading the book with us or not, feel free to share your own thoughts & experiences.
Frank,
Is the professor saying: We shouldn’t test all things in light of the scriptures? That the scriptures aren’t clear enough to formulate correct doctrine? That only pastors or trained scholars can interpretate scripture? If the latter thats exactly what the catholic church believes, that would be shocking to here someone of the reformed persuasion say that.But I do agree personel interpertation is very prevalant in our age people TRY to make scripture say what they want it to say. But we can’t then assume that all people shouldn’t test all things by scripture. We all need to bow down to what the scriptures say and live accordingly.
As for Piper appealing to the Westminster confession or the 5 points is fine. To me its a problem when you say that the problem with non Calvinists is they don’t cherish the power of God which he’s said.
As for Beckwith I just think he wanted somebody to tell him what to believe and that everythings going to be all right.
P.S. J/K on Beckwith.
Is the professor saying: We shouldn’t test all things in light of the scriptures? That the scriptures aren’t clear enough to formulate correct doctrine? That only pastors or trained scholars can interpretate scripture?
The Good professor was stating that in light of Church History there have been many, the Gnostics in particular, who twisted the scriptures to their view. It is one of the sad but realistic facts that a church council in Nicea was called to clarify many areas of doctrinal dispute. The trinity being one such hot topic among many.
Therefore, in the past , there was an appeal to Church fathers and their understanding of scripture, such as Augustine. I love his “Confessions”.
The professor was highlighting that the confessions and creeds were an attempt to frame the true and accurate doctrines of the church in reaction to the heresies of the time. This statement is very much in keeping with most reformed theologians who follow the Westminster Confession and I see it as a practical instrument. There is a place , however for teachers and scholars in helping the Church body in understanding the scriptures. If that weren’t the case, there would be no need for sermons or leaders in bible study , seminaries etc. If the scriptures could easily be understood equally by everyone , there would be no need for anyone to instruct another.It would be self evident. I think there should be a healthy balance and the fact that we have so many denominations is empirical evidence that men of good will, and that is the point, have differed in their reading of the scriptures.
In sum, how could men of good will , such as Whitefield and Weseley arrive at such different conclusions? Was there something wrong with the scriptures? I don’t think so.I think in part that we see through the glass dimly.
I have not read Piper but I have read Gertzner, and he was definitely strident towards dispensationalists. He called them heretics.
Also, having read some of Beckwiths thoughts, I believe he deserves a little more credit as he was pondering at the issue of Autonomy. You can read his posts on ” Whats Wrong with the World ” blog. Its a Catholic Philosophy blog.
ps. I am not endorsing becoming a Catholic or an Calvinist! I was amazed when Muggeridge became Catholic way back when and scratched my head. I just feel a need to understand fully other peoples positions and why they hold to them. As my favorite talkshow host Dennis Prager says, I would rather have clarity of our positions than agreement.
blessings
Frank
I agree,I must have misunderstood,thanks for the clarification.The professors right,many have gone before and contended for the Faith and discovered the doctrines of God that we now hold dear and I thank God for them and much can and should be learned from them. As for teachers and scholors theres no question God has given them to the body for the edification of the church.
I guess in a time of spiritual deception and biblical illiteracy and false teaching. I’m always worried about the sheep blindly following a “teacher”.
God Bless
Hey Tom,
Good post. There is room for all of us.
Ad Fontis!