Does God Know Your Next Move?
posted 6/11/2001 12:00AM
Part 1:
Introduction | John Sanders 1 | Chris Hall 1 | Sanders 2 | Hall 2
Part 2:
John Sanders 3 | Chris Hall 3 | Sanders 4 | Hall 4 | Sanders 5 | Postscript
Both of us believe the early church provides both helpful and unhelpful models for handling and adjudicating theological controversy. Think, for example, of issues and events surrounding the Arian controversy. In the fourth century, a presbyter by the name of Arius argued that the Son was an exalted creature but not God. As Arius put it, "There was a time when he [the Son] was not." The church rejected the teaching of Arius and affirmed that the Father, Son, and Spirit were all equally one God and shared the same divine nature. The final criterion for the church's rejection or acceptance of Arius's position was whether it fit well with the Scripture and with the church's worship.
However, the final decision regarding Arianism involved years of theological turmoil and debate. Some Christians treated their opponents with respect and integrity, while others acted acrimoniously and deceptively. While acknowledging the key role Roman politics played in the struggle, we believe the final outcome was reached through a thorough reading of the Scripture, years of concentrated thought and lively debate, and viewing the issue through the lens of the church's own worship. In its best moments, the debate was surrounded by prayer and by deep dependence upon the Spirit's guidance. In the debate's worst moments, personal attacks and agendas, political machinations, pride and anger, and, yes, even demonic attack threatened to subvert the search for truth.
How might these early controversies and councils guide us as we debate the openness position today?
First, we observe the importance of solid biblical exegesis. The bottom line for any position must be whether it faithfully represents the prophetic and apostolic revelation given to us in the Bible.
Second, does the proposed theological model recognize and preserve the insights given to us by the Christian communion over the centuries? In what manner does the model modify the decisions of key ecumenical councils, creeds, and confessional statements? An important issue in the openness debate is the role of theological tradition. Care must be taken to preserve the insights of the past; at the same time, we must be prepared to separate the chaff that may remain. Are these modifications the openness model advocates legitimate developments or illegitimate distortions?
Third, we need not fear a hearty and forthright argument. There is always a time for charitable polemics. If we think a theological model or position is a bad one or is superior to another, we need to say so directly. It is often during the debate itself that the implications of a theological model rise to the surface. Allow time for the debate to unfold. Avoid premature conclusions.
Fourth, the evangelical community must work hard to resolve theological debates communally. This is a particular challenge for the evangelical world, as it contains many ecclesial bodies. Hence, the importance of continuing to provide forums in which we can debate issues such as the openness model fairly, honestly, charitably, and directly. These forums can occur through the medium of print (the publishing of books through publishers such as IVP, Baker, Eerdmans, and Crossway, and articles in magazines or journals such as Christianity Today, Books & Culture, The Journal of the Christian Theological Research Fellowship, and The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society). We can continue to sponsor public debates and papers through scholarly societies such as the Christian Theological Research Fellowship, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the American Academy of Religion. Church communities can also provide forums for discussion and debate, as has been occurring recently in the Baptist General Conference.
June 11 2001, Vol. 45, No. 8
1 of 2
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
