Brian M. Abshire

Table of Contents

1. Iron Sharpening Iron:
2. Introduction:
3. Doctrine and Salvation.
4. Doctrinal Divisions and Secularization.
5. Worship in Spirit and Truth
6. Just what is Doctrine?
7. The Psychology of Learning and Non-Ratio-centric Thinking.
8. Various Ways of “Knowing” – Human Brain Research.
9. Implications for Doing Theology.
10. Implications for Fellowship with Non-Reformed Christians.
11. Implications for Personal Devotion.
12. Implications for Preaching.
13. Implications for Evangelism.
14. Implications for Worship.
15. Conclusion.

Iron Sharpening Iron:

Over the past thirty years in various churches, ministries and fellowships, I have had the sheer joy of knowing and interacting with some very bright, well-read, and articulate Christians from across the theological and denominational spectrum. And in that fellowship, we would often spend entire evenings or whole Lord’s Days after formal worship, discussing theology, the Scriptures, ethics, philosophy, etc. It came as a shock to me that many Christians never had the privilege of this kind of aggressive intellectual encouragement in their churches; nobody it seemed had ever loved them enough to trash their faulty logic, point out holes in their theological constructs or make them squarely face the implications of their worldview.

Solomon said that “iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another” (Pvbs 27:17) which the author of Hebrews echoed a thousand years later when he said “let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds.” So in this series of essays, I wanted to see if can “stimulate” the brethren by trying to capture the “feel” of some of those old “iron sharpening iron” times.

Thus, rather than my normal, concise, critical essay showing impeccable logic and irrefutable conclusions (yeah, right), instead we offer a series of informal “discussions” where an idea is thrown out, examined from various perspectives and the logic followed to wherever it leads.

Now, like the informal discussions mentioned above, we do start with some important presuppositions; i.e., we affirm a priori the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, the integrity and accuracy of the Reformed faith, especially the Westminster Standards as a reliable and excellent summary of true “doctrine.” However, sometimes, in these “discussions” we will address whether the common understanding of the Scriptures or the Reformed faith is necessarily accurate. Our overall goal is to understand God’s word better and apply it more consistently to His glory.

So sit back and relax with your favorite potable, keep your Bible along side and think with us as we explore and discuss various issues. We’ll try to keep the style light and “non-academic” and when we use some obscure theological term we’ll define it so you don’t get lost in all the verbiage. But be prepared to think through some ideas. And oh yes, please be gracious-before saying “Oh I know where this is going;” give us a break and stay with us to the end; you may be pleasantly surprised!

And if you would like to interact with the material, just go to our forums and post your thoughts, disagreements, etc. so that as iron sharpens iron, we all become better, sharper, more effective servants of the Living and True God.

Introduction:

As teaching elders in a confessional church (RPC), my brother elders and I firmly believe that right doctrine is important. We affirm in our ordination vows that the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms are what the Bible teaches; and therefore, logically, what all Christians should believe. And if one has a little bit of historical perspective, the knowledgeable person will admit that at one time, pretty nearly all Protestants (apart from Lutherans) believed something like what the Westminster Standards teach; e.g., Anglicans (39 articles) continental Reformed (Three Forms of Unity) and of course Congregationalists (Puritans) and Presbyterians. While there are some major differences between Reformed theology and Lutheranism, still the two are closer in theory than Reformed theology is to modern, broad evangelicalism. Even most Baptists originally assumed the overall accuracy of the Confession; merely changing the part about baptism. At the time that America was constituted as a nation, probably 90% of Christians held to some form of Reformed theology.

However, that has all changed; modern broad evangelical Christianity which makes up probably 90%+ of those who affirm the historic Christian gospel of salvation by faith, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, etc., largely reject Reformed (or for that matter any other) doctrinal formulations. Now, there are several ways of demonstrating that statistic; I arrived at the figure by looking at denominational affiliations in standard reference works and comparing the number of people who attend Reformed churches with those who attend non-reformed churches (and that of course assumes the people who attend Reformed churches are actually Reformed; a dubious assumption).

But you can test the theory for yourself: just ask some Christian friends or co-workers about predestination. My experience is that 9 out of 10 evangelical Christians reject the doctrine the doctrines of grace. Granted, being Reformed means far more than affirming TULIP;[1] but if they reject THIS, then therefore, they will inevitably reject everything else in the system that underlies it (i.e., the utter sovereignty of God, the role of the Moral Law, regulative principle, etc.).

Now the first question that comes to mind is just what is the spiritual status of these 40 million or so, “born again” evangelical Christians who not only lack a consistent and comprehensive Christian worldview (which we believe that only Reformed theology provides), but actually reject the basic doctrinal formulations that provide the foundation for that worldview? And since we are entering a theological minefield, let us do a bit of stomping about and see what blows up in our faces by also asking, “What about all those devout, sincere Christians who believe in the ‘charismata,’ such as contemporary prophecies, speaking in tongues, etc., which are actually counter to Reformed dogmatic theology?” What is their status before God? For not only do they most commonly deny what we Reformed folks believe to be essential doctrine, but actually affirm things we believe to be untrue! This is no small question and probably deserves a Masters’ thesis to properly answer, but it does need to be considered.

When discussing this issue or reading critical essays and books that deal with theology (and we Reformed types tend to write the vast bulk of serious type theological works), several responses seem most common. For example, there are some on the extreme end of the Reformed pendulum who come right out and say that all these non-Reformed broad evangelicals are quite frankly, damned. Now, some may be more subtle than others, but the underlying assumption is that unless a Christian self-consciously acknowledges the Reformed faith as the true faith, then they have no saving faith at all. I have had more than a few serious conversations or correspondences over the years with those who say flat out that Arminianism is a false gospel and anyone who believes it is unregenerate and lost in their sins; and by “Arminian” they specifically mean anyone who does not self-consciously affirm Reformed soteriology.[2]

A more “middle of the road” response (in my experience, probably held by the majority of Reformed elders, writers, theologians, and Christians in general) is that primarily, the problem is one of “education;” i.e., for the most part, broad evangelicals suffer from bad teaching and preaching and not reading enough of the good books we Reformed types write every year. And if such Christians did so, they would both better understand the Christian faith and eventually come around to our way of thinking. Now, the fact that thus far we have been largely unsuccessful in “converting” many of these folks is a bit of a problem; but since most of the people in our churches came out of broad evangelicalism, there must be something to it.

This view would also allow for human sin as an explanation for why so many Christians reject the Reformed faith-after all there are sins of the intellect as well as sins of the flesh. The doctrine of Total Depravity means that the totality of man’s nature is affected by sin, including the mind. So some people do not adopt Reformed doctrine because they have a sinful inclination in this area, just as some Reformed Christians might struggle with a sinful temper, or a wandering eye, pride or some other unsanctified character trait. So we can comfort ourselves in our small, struggling churches because at heart, we know we have the truth, and either others have not yet discovered it, or they sinfully refuse it.

And then thirdly, there are those who at least verbally say that they are Reformed and belong to Confessional churches but at heart, really think that Reformed theology is nice and all, but not really essential. For them, what is really important is getting people “saved” and not incidentally, growing one’s church. So Reformed theology is basically available for the “super-spiritual” types; but good old broad evangelicalism is good enough for the common folk in the pew. And besides, most Christians find all that doctrine and theology boring, sometimes controversial and too much of an emphasis on it will only drive people away.

This characterization may sound a bit nasty but I really do know a number of teaching and ruling elders in Confessional churches, that in private conversation will wax eloquently about the Reformed faith, demonstrate a good grasp of its intricacies, and seem not only to accept it, but to actually love it; just so long as it is kept safely at presbytery meetings, personal reading or private conversations. Yet when they preach or teach, one would be hard-pressed to discern any real difference in their message from the broad-evangelical charismatic mega-church down the street. One great quote that deserves inclusion here comes from a professional colleague who said “Doctrine is as important as the color of the sanctuary carpets.”

Now pondering all the above, I am forced to ask some questions that have been niggling at the edges of my thinking for years; just how important is proper, doctrinal understanding? Amongst the three positions noted above (and there may be others as well, some more consistently worked out than others), there is “some” merit to each. Undoubtedly there are those within the visible evangelical church who are “wolves” who hate God, hate Christ and hate true doctrine because their hearts are unregenerate. They therefore work unceasingly to attack the Reformed faith at every opportunity just because it is the best, clearest statement of God’s truth. They then substitute a man-made gospel for that truth; after all, heresy is nothing new.

It is also likely that in the broad evangelical community there are probably thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions?) of confessed Christians who do want a better understanding of the Christian faith but have been handicapped by poorly educated teachers and preachers. Such people are trying to live a consistent Christian life in submission to King Jesus, in so far as they understand it. And, if they did get a better doctrinal foundation, they would be better able to understand and live out that life to the glory of God.

And, strange though it may see, there may also be some measure of truth in the “Barely Reformed” camp that recognizes that some people are just not intellectually ready (or perhaps even equipped) to deal with the utter world and life-view transformation necessary to go from modern, antinomian broad evangelicalism to a consistent understanding of the Christian faith. Is it really so strange that the average, working class broad evangelical is not prepared to meaningfully interact with the infralapsarian versus supralapsarian controversy?[3]

However, it may also be that we are in fact asking the wrong questions and therefore getting inadequate answers. Since the time of the Reformation, we, at least in the Reformed world, have implicitly assumed the centrality of rational formulations of doctrine –what I call “ratio-centric” to be the “essence” of Christian faith and that assumption governs all of our thinking, and all the actions based on that thinking. Perhaps it is time to reexamine that assumption to see whether it is necessarily valid.

Doctrine and Salvation

Let’s see if we can phrase this question a bit differently by starting further back in the discussion; just how much truth is necessary for a man to believe and affirm to be considered a Christian? In other words, how much right doctrine is enough doctrine to give a “credible confession of faith” in Christ?

Have you ever thought about this issue before? Our Reformed ancestors did and Foxes Book of Martyrs records our spiritual ancestors willing to be burned at the stake over the precise formulation of certain doctrines! For example, these great warriors for Christ thought the issue of transubstantiation was so important, it was worth dying a most horrible death rather than accept something they thought theologically deficient.

Now just think about this for a moment; in the first three centuries of the church, our ancestors also died at the hands of the Romans because they refused to offer a pinch of incense on an alter dedicated to the Emperor and say “Caesar is Lord.” Now we today understand why they were willing to suffer and die rather than say “Caesar is Lord;” it was idolatry. Christians could not say “Caesar is Lord” because it implicitly denied the most basic creedal confession of the faith, “Jesus is Lord.” So the early Christian martyrs were willing to die before doing something that would in effect deny Jesus. They understood that there could only be one “Lord.”

And their experience, in the light of Scripture, provides the fundamental baseline of how much doctrine is enough for salvation; to be “saved” a person has to confess “Jesus is Lord” and believe, in their hearts, that God raised Him from the dead (Rms 10:9-10). Read the entire passage in context and note what the Apostle Paul states from the Old Testament scriptures; “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed” (Isa 9:33) and he then quotes Joel 2:32-“for whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Now of course, we Reformed folks understand that it takes a supernatural act on God’s part to regenerate the wicked human heart and give saving faith to believe in Christ and confess Him as Lord; but it is this combination of inner faith and outward confession that God uses to save a man.

Clearly, the early Martyrs understood that the confession of “lordship” was exclusive; they could not say “Caesar is Lord” because it would deny the Lordship of Jesus. The word “Lord” does not just mean “someone with authority” but clearly must mean “someone with ultimate authority” - more about this in a moment. However at this point, we can acknowledge that one of the foundational doctrines (not the only one, just the most basic one) of the early church was acknowledging the exclusivity of Jesus claim to Lordship.

The Romans 10:9-10 passage also has a fundamental requirement that a person must believe “God raised Him from the dead.” Clearly, there are implications here regarding the Lord Jesus’ death as a propitiation for our sins (1 Jn 2:2), and that the resurrection (at least in one aspect), was God’s confirmation that Jesus’ death was satisfactory and perfectly fulfilled His righteous wrath. Yet, at the same time, belief in the resurrection may have been important just because it was an affirmation of God’s revelation which contradicted and overturned the most basic premises of Greek, philosophy. Neo-Platonism, which was pretty much universally assumed in the first two centuries of church history, saw “God” as pure spirit or “idea” and the material world as inherently sinful. There could be no real connection between Heaven and Earth; “salvation” was therefore through “knowledge” (Gnosticism), asceticism (Stoicism) or by destroying the appetite through overloading the senses (Epicureanism).

Thus, the resurrection was an offense to the fundamental Greek presuppositions that almost all first century people would have assumed as a basic “truth.” By “believing” in the resurrection of Christ, it automatically put one at odds with the “best” theological, philosophical and scientific theories of the day; i.e., if the material world is inherently evil, why then would God resurrect someone? The whole point of “salvation” from the Greek perspective was to ascend to higher, “spiritual” levels once one escaped from the material world. In fact, these Greek presuppositions were so pervasive, that in the second century and beyond, the church repeatedly had to rebuke and refute various implications of Greek philosophy that appeared as “heresies” taught by those within the church who denied the incarnation, the crucifixion or the resurrection!

So hence, even the most basic doctrinal formulation we have to distinguish between a Christian and a non-Christian explicitly requires not only a positive confession of the exclusive claims of Jesus as Lord, but also, implicitly a denial of anti-Christian philosophy. First century believers had to reject everything they had ever believed about God, creation, man, and salvation in order to meet the requirements of Romans 10:9-10.

In light of this, we might add as a supporting pillar, the claim that Jesus was the “Christ.” We say this so commonly, so unthinkingly today that we forget the significance of the Lord’s most basic title. The Greek word we transliterate as “Christ” is a translation of the Hebrew term “Messiah” which means “Anointed One.” Therefore to acknowledge that Jesus was the “Christ” was to say that one confesses Him as the Messiah of God. But this Hebrew term would not have meant much to Gentiles lacking a proper Hebrew understanding, would it? After all, Christianity was ridiculed not only for its “primitive” belief in a physical resurrection, but also because the nearest Greek word for “Anointed One” literally meant “One Smeared with Oil;” sometimes words in one language do not always translate the same thoughts in another.[4]

So one can easily imagine Paul and the other evangelists proclaiming in a market place “Jesus is the One Smeared with Oil by God!” and the crowd starting to titter! Surely, Paul must have immediately had to explain just what he meant by “Smeared with Oil.” The Hebrew term “Anointed One” is a reference to the Old Testament practice of anointing a person chosen to be King by God. By the time of the New Testament, the term was used primarily to refer to the Coming King, who would restore David’s throne. It carried both the idea of a conquering King and a Redeemer, both physical and spiritual. After all, Jesus was dragged before Pilate just because the Pharisees and Sanhedrin accused him of instigating civil rebellion by proclaiming Himself to be the “Christ” and had to explain to Pilate that this meant “king” (Luke 23:2!

Now, is the picture getting any clearer? Even the simplest, least controversial statements in the Scriptures, have behind them, considerable theological, philosophical and intellectual content. It appears that God might require us to have a more sophisticated understanding of His nature, being, purposes and plans than some might expect!

Getting back to our ancestors in the Reformation, the issue for the Martyrs of Bloody Mary Tudor, was not whether one denied Jesus as Lord, but rather whether the elements of communion somehow, mystically became the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). Today, we might well ask, “Why?” Why die for one particular intellectual or theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper; after all, both Roman Catholics and Reformers believe that Jesus was Lord. Both would agree that He said, “This is My body.” One side took the statement literally, another “spiritually” (and some, like the Zwinglians took it as purely metaphorical or symbolic[5]). So why die over some esoteric, academic, obscure, literary, grammatical, philosophical or theological explanation? In the “immortal” words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Well of course, you already understand that the issue was not just over a “doctrine” but rather the necessary implications of that doctrine. If the communion elements were literally transformed into the body and blood of Jesus (as the Roman view taught), then these elements could and should be worshipped (hence the Roman practice of elevating of the “Host” which the Confession explicitly forbids us to do). Therefore, the Reformers saw transubstantiation as idolatry and could not in good conscience affirm something forbidden by the Second Commandment. To have affirmed transubstantiation then would have necessarily required the Martyrs to commit an act of apostasy; so they chose to die horrible deaths (often being burnt at the stake) rather than risk their eternal souls by breaking the Second Commandment.

So it certainly seems that there are some doctrines worth dying for; at least when the issues are clear cut. In the above example, everyone knew what was at stake; the Reformers were reacting against what they sincerely believed to be an example of idolatry- to affirm transubstantiation would in effect, in their eyes, to worship an idol and deny Christ. They simply had no other choice, did they?

Doctrinal Divisions and Secularization

Yet, taking a slightly different tack for a moment, sociologically and historically speaking, there is little doubt that the religious persecutions, murders and warfare of the 16^th and 17^th century directly led to the secularization of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. While this topic is too complex for us to prove, most scholars will agree that killing or dying for doctrine was at least partially responsible for the popular reaction against “scholastic” Christianity, and the subsequent rise of Pietism, Deism, attacks on the integrity of the Bible and the eventual secularization of all Western nations.[6] To those of us who have read the literature of the times and sampled the zeitgeist of the 18^th century in particular, we KNOW that the stated reason for rejecting dogmatic theology began with this abhorrence over Christians killing Christians over doctrinal differences. This directly led to many attempting to find some “secular” (meaning non-religious) way of living as an alternative to religious warfare and strife.

Of course “secularization” led to the Reign of Terror in France, the Napoleonic Wars, De Sade, Nilhism, the end of American constitutional government after the War between the States, Anarchism, Marxism, the Russian Revolution, National Socialism, the Holocausts (both Jewish and unborn babies) and probably, at conservative estimates the murder of hundreds of millions of people in the 20^th century alone by humanist national governments acting consistently on their secularized presuppositions. So by noting this fact we are not trying in anyway to justify secularization; just noting how we got from where we were, to where we are today.

I cannot say this without risk of contradiction because the Internet allows for anyone with a word processor and a dialup connection to have a web-site, but I am not aware of any “Reformed” Christian today, no matter how anti-Catholic his doctrine, calling for the arrest, imprisonment or execution of Roman Catholic priests just for being Roman Catholic.[7] But many old English homes still have “priest-holes” where Roman clergy could hide when the Puritans were in power. Most serious Christian scholars today reject the idea that the power of the State should be used to punish “unacceptable” doctrines.[8]

But that brings us back to the initial question; just how much doctrine is “enough” doctrine? And what precisely is the status of Christians who have “less than perfect” intellectual understanding of what some of us at least, firmly believe to be essential?

Worship in Spirit and Truth-

Let us take another step back for a moment, and consider this issue from a slightly different perspective. One text that has profoundly influenced my own thinking over the past two decades is John 4:24, which concerns Jesus’ comments to the Samaritan woman at the well. During the course of the conversation[9] she asks Jesus who was right, the Jews who worshipped at the temple, or the Samaritans who worshipped on the mountain like Jacob (Jn 4:12, 20, Genesis 33:20). In essence, she was claiming legitimacy for Samaritan worship practices based on precedence and antiquity; Jacob precedes Moses by hundreds of years; therefore, she is actually asking, “Is not OUR worship at least if not more authentic and valid as that which was based upon the tabernacle and temple?”

Jesus first flatly corrects her,” you worship that which you do not know” and then affirms that temple worship was the proper form because “salvation is from the Jews.” He then goes on to say, “an hour is coming and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshippers. God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Now let’s “unpack” the Lord’s words here and see whether it helps clarify our question. The Samaritans were a mongrel race of Gentiles who had intermarried with the surviving Hebrew remnants of Northern Israel after the Assyrian conquest and depopulation of most of the Ten Northern Tribes. The Assyrians had moved in people from across their empire, presumably to destroy linguistic, ethnic and religious identities and therefore forestall revolutions and uprisings. After having some hard times with the local wildlife, the few remaining Hebrews taught the newcomers something about Yahweh. Later on, the entire area was re-conquered by the Maccabees (Jewish patriots in the Greek wars) and partially re-settled by Jews from the South. However, the Samaritans and Jews were known for their animosity towards one another and lived in separate communities.

By the time of the New Testament, the Samaritans had some knowledge of the One True God, tracing at least part of their religion and ritual back to Jacob, and in so far as we can tell, tried to offer Him sincere worship. When the Samaritan woman talks with Jesus, she is arguing that her people’s worship was a legitimate alternative to temple worship and cites a Biblical example based on one of the Patriarchs, the man from whom Israel received her very name.

Jesus does not deny the sincerity of Samaritan worship; in fact one can read the text in such as way that He assumed they were “sincere.” However He does state that the worship, no matter how sincerely it might have been offered[10] and regardless of its historical precedence, was still not acceptable to God. He then, implicitly goes on to criticize Jewish Temple worship, predicting a day when worship would no longer be offered at the Temple, because (my interpretation here) the Temple would be destroyed. And the Temple was destroyed by God, because, the Jewish people, though “true” in being technically correct in their liturgy and sacrifices, did not worship in “spirit.” If they had been worshipping in “spirit” they would have recognized Jesus as the promised Messiah. Instead, they used the forms of “true” worship (The “Sh’ma Ysrael” or “there is only one God,” the Laws about blasphemy, the Mosaic judicial process used by the Sanhedrin, etc.) as a means of executing the very Person about whom the Temple worship was supposed to reveal!

So then, we have, from the Lord’s own words, two basic principles of approaching God that are indispensable and interconnected; worship must be in “spirit” and in “truth.” Several necessary deductions therefore flow; untruth, no matter how piously or sincerely held does not honor God nor worship Him as He wants to be worshipped. And conversely, true worship, if not from “the heart” (or however one defines “spirit”) does not honor Him, nor worship Him as He wants to be worshipped.

Thus, clearly, wrong understandings of God are forbidden. If God has revealed Himself in one way in Scripture, and people understand Him in some different way, then their worship is not in “truth” and therefore unacceptable. This principle is nothing new; it is simply a restatement of the preface, First and Second Commandments. You cannot worship God if you do not understand, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before Me.” God is the “I Am,” the Self-Existent One who is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the One Who declares the “end from the beginning” the only “True” God. He is the One who redeemed His people from slavery in history and performed wondrous works to reveal His will, nature and being. There are no other gods but Him; all other claims are false. And therefore, the only proper, moral response is to love this God, and this God alone with all our heart, strength, mind, body and soul (Deut 6:5, Mark 12:30).

So God wants to be worshipped in truth, and He wants be loved with our minds; therefore there is a moral requirement to bring our thoughts into captivity to Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5). Ok, at this point anyway, we can establish that right doctrine, right understanding of God of His nature, being, promises and will is required. Every Christian therefore ought to be seeking to learn more about God; or as we sometimes say “improve our baptisms.” And of course, I can almost hear the cheering from the Reformed section; for if Christians actually improve their understanding of God, by necessity they must come closer and closer to the Reformed faith, because (and no egotism here) the Reformed faith IS Biblical faith.

But you may want to hold your applause for a moment; every Christian agrees there ought to be growth in the Christian life; growth in knowledge, wisdom, hatred for our sins, hunger and thirst for righteousness and godliness, etc. The issue we have been trying to address is all those people who confess Jesus as Lord and yet are not only deficient in their understanding of His nature, being, and purpose but sometimes downright wrong in their doctrine! While there is evidence in many churches of a rediscovery of some aspects of Reformed theology (we may have been knocked down the last 150 years, but not out), does anyone realistically see a great revival of Calvinism any time soon (apart that is, from a disjunctive sovereign act of God in history)?

Let me suggest that perhaps most broad evangelicals are focusing on worshipping God in spirit, while Reformed Christians may be emphasizing worshipping Him in truth. And if accurate, that statement means that at least some Reformed Christians could be just as erroneous in their emphasis on worshipping Him in “truth” as other Christians are in emphasizing worshipping Him in “spirit.” Now if that didn’t set off a landmine I am just not stomping hard enough!

But please, think with me; who is doing all the evangelism today; your local, “Truly Reformed” church or that bunch of wild-eyed fanatical, broad evangelical, almost Arminian baptistic type church down the street? Who is walking the picket lines against abortion, or getting involved with trying to stop the cultural sewage from pornography, prostitution, or the latest assault from the Sodomite community? Can you really characterize the average Reformed church as full of love for the brethren, deeply involved in people’s lives, compassionate and gracious in relationships all while holding firmly to the rigorous standards of the Confession?

Oh sure, your church does all these things; I didn’t mean to imply that it didn’t-but of course you admit that your church is “unusual” or special, and far above the “average” Reformed church, right? In your Reformed church people are not superficial, critical, legalistic or caustic. And of course, your church is growing phenomenally even though it will not compromise on Reformed theology. But I am talking about those “other guys…” you know the ones…

My point here is of course that simply understanding and professing right doctrine does not necessarily seem to translate into practical application of the truth. And to be perfectly honest, after coming out of broad evangelical churches with all their theological errors and into Reformed churches with all their intellectual accuracy; I cannot really say that Reformed Christians are any holier, devout, humbler before God, more fervent in service, more passionate in love, or any other desirable character trait than their “misguided” brothers.

Kind of depressing, ain’t it? But I do think there are explanations for this; part of the problem of course is the issue of Pietism[11] that infects every evangelical church today, another part has to do with the church’s adoption of post-Kantian epistemology[12]. And of course, part of the answer is that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. But when Reformed Christians see their percentage of the total Christian population dwindle year after year, decade after decade, century after century, maybe, just maybe it is time to ask if our assumptions are as “correct” as we think they are. Perhaps some of us have been seduced by a more subtle form of pietism wherein we focus on the academic, the intellectual, the theoretical and so confuse ideas with “spirit?”

For example, we started this meandering essay by noting the emphasis that Reformed Christians place on the importance of right “doctrine.” And I bet (that is, if you bet) you probably read that word and automatically assumed that the word “doctrine” meant something like, “theological propositions” or such; right? And of course, if the Bible says it is important to have right “doctrine” and “doctrine” means “good theology” then clearly, Christians without good theology are in trouble; agreed?

Just what is Doctrine?

But what if our understanding of what the word “doctrine” means is wrong? What if “doctrine” actually means something OTHER than “theological statements or propositions?” Would not our logical conclusions ALSO be wrong? For a conclusion may be logical but still erroneous, IF the premises themselves are flawed.

So what am I getting at here? Well, let’s take a quick look at every instance of the word “doctrine” in the New Testament and see what how the word is actually used and defined in Scripture. The word “doctrine” or “doctrines” is used by the New American Standard Bible in the following passages; Eph 4:14, 1 Tim 4:6, 6:1, 6:3, 2 Tim 4:3, Titus 1:9, 2:1, 2:7, 2:10, Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:7, 1 Tim 1:3 and 1 Tim 4:1. It translates the Greek words “didache” didaskalos and heterodidaskaleo (strange or “contrary” doctrine) and comes from the word “to teach” or “teacher.”[13]

In essence the word simply means “teaching” or “instruction,” “the act of teaching” and “what is taught.” Now it ought to be apparent that anything that is “taught” can be doctrine, not just theological propositions or philosophical concepts. Thus, we could use the word “doctrine” to refer to what is “taught” in history, biology, chemistry, psychology or any other subject matter. The word has nothing to say about the content of the “instruction.” In Scripture then, “good doctrine” refers to teaching that is in accordance with the accepted content and “bad doctrine” teaching that is not consistent with the accepted content; but the word itself does not tell us what that content was. Now just what was the content of the “teaching” that the Apostle Paul was so concerned about Timothy and Titus and the Ephesians getting right?

Looking over the individual passes, in Ephesians 4:14, Paul addresses the role of apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors and teachers. Such were given for the equipping of the saints for their work of service, and that as a result, Christians are not to be children, carried about by every wind of “doctrine.” The “doctrine” is defined here as “the trickery of men,” and “craftiness in deceitful scheming.” Well, that does not seem to help very much since the verse does not so much deal with the content of the “doctrine” but rather the motivations of those who teach false doctrines. The context however appears to concern “the equipping of the saints.” Note this because we will come back to it later.

In 1 Timothy 4:6 He says that “in pointing out these things to the brethren you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound [good] doctrine which you have been following.” The key here is interpreting the phrase “these things;” which in context, refer back to verses 1-5 wherein Paul warns Timothy about a day coming when some people would fall away from the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and the “doctrines” of demons. So the question that should spring to mind is “What did he mean by the doctrines of demons?” Was it Romanism or maybe Arminianism? Or could it have been a warning of Theological Liberalism? How about we consider that it might have been Antinomianism, Dispensationalism, or something?

However, Paul defined the “doctrine of demons” in verse three as (1) men who forbid marriage and (2) advocated abstaining from certain foods! Wow, really esoteric theological concepts there, eh? In other words, both of the specific examples that Paul gives of the “doctrine of demons” do not appear to deal with theology so much as with Christian ethics; i.e., men saying that certain things were evil, that God had said were good. Now, clearly this is a “doctrine of demons” because it is a manifestation of Original Sin all over again; man determining good and evil apart from God. But the salient point here is that when we see the content of “doctrine” defined, it is not “right vs. wrong ideas about God” but rather “calling something good, evil.”

Let us move on; in 1 Timothy 6:1 Paul basically tells slaves to give honor to their masters so that the name of God and “our doctrine” may not be spoken against. Here, Paul does not define what he means by “our teaching” just that he does not want its reputation ruined by slaves being disrespectful. However, we should note that the word “doctrine” is again used within the context of ethical behavior, not intellectual propositions.

However, further on in this same passage (1 Timothy 6:3ff), the situation is a little clearer; here Paul continues with the same thought and warns that if “anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words… he is conceited and understands nothing.” Now the context is clearly concerned with the way that believing slaves are to treat their masters, especially those masters who too are believers. But the “doctrine” here is defined, not as “right theological propositions” but rather as an ethical requirement of what Jesus demands from His people; specifically that slaves must respect their masters. “Right” doctrine is “right actions” and in this passage, appears to have nothing to do with “theology.”

In 2 Timothy 4:3 again, Paul warns about the time coming when people will not “endure sound doctrine” but does not define what the content of that “sound teaching is.” However, in Titus 1:9 when he uses the word “sound doctrine” the context is clearly the character qualification for an elder. An elder must hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the “teaching” so he can exhort in “sound doctrine.” Again, when we actually encounter the word with some surrounding, amplifying material, it appears to be associated with character or ethics, or righteous living more than theological propositions.

Now comes the clincher; in Titus 2:1 Paul then requires Titus to “speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” Do we then have a description of the differences between the ontological and economical Trinities, the hypostatic union of Christ, a discourse on eschatology or a defense of salvation by faith alone? No, in all the following verses that explain what Paul meant by “doctrine” he deals with ethical and character issues; e.g., he tells Titus what older men and women are to do, what younger women and men are to do, what slaves are to do, etc. He then goes on in verse 11 to state that salvation “instructs” us to “deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age.” In other words, the “sound doctrine” defined here has nothing to do with abstract theoretical understandings of “theology” (or affirming the “right” ideas), but rather in how to live in the right way!

Now I can hear the tar bubbling and the chickens squawking as their feathers are being plucked and prepared; but if we interpret unclear passages by clear ones, are we not forced to conclude that when the New Testament uses the word “doctrine” it refers to the “teaching” about “how to live in conformity with the Law of God” and not about “believing the right things about God.” In fact, as I examined every instance of the word “doctrine” (whether translated that way or not) in the New Testament, I could not find one place where it was unambiguously used as “a body of theological propositions or understanding.” Now, there were many times when you could read this meaning into the passage, if you began with the presupposition that “doctrine” means “theology.” But you could just as easily read “the body of teaching of how to live in conformity with the Law of God” just as easily. And of course, when one does find actual definitions of “doctrines,” they support my view, rather than the more common understanding.

Hence allow me to suggest that all the exhortations we find in God’s word about the importance of having “sound doctrine” have little to do with having the right set of theological propositions but rather, whether or not we understand how to live righteously, humbly and submissively before God. I am certainly open to be corrected on this issue but in so far as I can see, many Christians begin with an untested assumption, read that assumption into the text and then conclude that “right ideas” are what is in view.

Now, this brings us to another issue; if in fact God thought having correct theological understanding to be crucial or central to the faith, why did He not write His Bible as a theology textbook? Of course, some are going to argue with me here, calling me dangerously arrogant because who I am to tell God how He should have written His Book! But I am not being arrogant; I humbly accept God’s revelation, as He authored it-and what I find is that He did not write His Bible as a series of theological propositions which everyone from the Church Fathers on down have insisted on rewriting it!

From the time of refuting the early heretics by writing the Apostles’ Creed which summarized the church’s earliest confession, through the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian Creeds, the church has had to labor, struggle, debate and discuss various “doctrines” in order to refute those who taught theological propositions that were considered heresy. Eventually, the Reformation produced the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards for the same reasons; to systematize what the Bible itself only says in parts and portions and to refute the teaching of Rome, the Arminians and the Ana-Baptists.

Now not for a moment do I denigrate or under-value the diligent work of all these godly men, nor (as in the case of the Westminster Standards) do I even disagree with their conclusions. But I am asking, if “correct” theology is as central as we have assumed, then why did so many men, at so many councils over so many centuries have to work so hard at drawing these things out from Scripture? Why did not God make a few, clearer statements such as “You lack the capacity of understanding the totality of my revelation; but to help you along, I the Father am the only true God, Jesus My Son is also fully God and My Holy Spirit is also fully God. Each of us is a distinct person with all the power, glory and majesty of God and deserves your worship and obedience. However, there are not three Gods, but One. You will not understand this; you just have to believe it.”

Clearly, God who knows all things, decided for His own reasons not to give us clear, unambiguous conclusions like this. Instead, He chose to reveal Himself a little bit here, a little bit there, sometimes in historical narrative, sometimes in poetry and sometimes in straight-forward doctrinal propositions. And then we come to His revelation and try to put those “bits” together into a logical, consistent framework. And the best that we have ever done is the Reformed Faith.

But what if our best efforts are mistaken (the chickens have stopped clucking now and I hear a stake being driven into the ground; and is that the sound of someone chopping firewood…). As we noted previously, basic logic is that the conclusion is only as good as the premises; one’s reasoning, no matter how logical it may be, can lead to erroneous conclusions if the premises are wrong or if some of the premises are absent. For example, if the world is flat and if one sails due west, then eventually, one will fall off the ends of the earth. The reasoning is logical and valid; the conclusion we know is in error. We know that because the premises themselves are flawed.

Now in Scripture, the premises are valid; they are God’s own revelation so therefore they must be true, because He is true (Jn 17:3). But the assumption we make in doing theology is that we have all the relevant premises to reach the “right” conclusion. This is not the same thing as the doctrine of the “sufficiency” of Scripture which essentially states that God’s Word is sufficient for salvation, for worship and serving Him as He wants to be worshipped and served. No, the assumption we often make when we do theology is that the Bible is sufficient for our understanding of the nature of God; and it is that assumption that is being queried.

Take for example Messianic revelation in the Old Testament. Clearly, this is a “doctrine” taught throughout the New Testament; i.e., that everything in the Old Testament was divinely inspired to reveal the Messiah. But it took supernatural revelation on the part of the Lord Jesus and later His apostles to make that revelation clear. Just look at some of the 200+ prophecies that the New Testament quotes as demonstrating that Jesus was the Messiah; if you read them in context without knowing how the New Testament interpreted them, would you see Jesus in them? For example, the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin is, in context, about Isaiah and given to Hezekiah and fulfilled (Isa 7:14ff)! But the New Testament authors take this text up and apply it to Jesus! How could anyone reason from this Old Testament event to the New Testament fulfillment without being given supernatural insight?

God says, “…for My ways are not your ways, and My thoughts are not your thoughts…” (Isa 55:9) In other words, as important as rational thinking may be, it is not sufficient in and of itself to arrive at truth because God’s thoughts are “higher” than ours. In order to understand God, you would have to be God; and it was that desire that got us into this mess in the first place (Gen 3:5-6). Hence, when we come to the actual data of Scripture and attempt to relate one true proposition with another proposition and then state conclusively “thus says the Lord” our conclusion may, or may not be valid. There may well be other things about God that He chose not to reveal that could change the conclusion entirely.

The “doctrine” of the sufficiency of Scripture says that God revealed all we need to know about Him but often, the unstated question is “Why would God not reveal everything we want to know about Him?” Think about this for a moment; what is “heaven” like? Most Christians if they have an answer to this are shocked to discover that their “picture” of “heaven” is essentially a variation of Greek pagan concepts of the “Elysium Fields” and has no Biblical warrant whatsoever. The Bible does tell us a little about the eternal state in very figurative language; i.e., as a place of joy, without pain or death, but not really much more. Christians who long for heaven seldom realize that they do not have a clue as to what eternity will consist of (and in reality our hope is the resurrection on a recreated earth, not a “spiritual” paradise in the clouds).

Yet, we all grow weary of this life and look forward to the resurrection even without adequate knowledge of what it is like because we trust God. Perhaps God gave us so little information about the eternal state because there are some things we just cannot understand with our finite human minds - or might well misconstrue. There are some things you just cannot explain to children, even genius children, because they lack the experiential framework to properly interpret what you are saying. And it could be the same with the “doctrine” of heaven, the Trinity, predestination or other controversial issues that while we can affirm what God says, we still might not understand it very well.

This should not really cause us any problems; after all, every day we encounter things that we do not understand, and know that we never could understand but we take them by “faith.” Can you explain the way the wings work on an airplane? Even if you do not understand differential air pressure, you probably still fly as necessary. Can you explain how to do nuclear physics, microbiology or statistical analysis? If you are like me, no matter how hard you study, you know in your heart that you will never get anything better than a “C” - yet you still “believe” what the professor tells you. The measure of trust you give an authority is in direct proportion to his trustworthiness; and the essence of “faith” is trusting in the promises, provisions and plans of God.

Is it not just basic Christian humility to say that God is too wonderful for us and some things might just beyond our ability to fully understand and appreciate, without sacrificing our intellects to emotionalism or Pietism? And though we do our best to put together His revelation, is it not again a requirement of humility to say, “This is the best we can do-but there may be more than we presently realize?”

And if we admit the above, does that not mean that within the visible covenant community there may be many of the brethren who confess Jesus as Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead, yet still have misconceptions of what we have put together since the Reformation. I have ministered to broad evangelicals, Charismatics, Bible church goers and the like for years in my Biblical counseling ministry. I do not recall ever having successfully managed to make good little Calvinists out of many of them; but almost always, by God’s grace they have been helped to understand true “doctrine” by learning how to love their wives, respect their husbands, resolve their conflicts, deal with their sin, avoid vexing their children while teaching them how to bring them up in discipline of the Lord. In other words, as important and as true as I believe Reformed theology to be, it is Reformed ethics that changes people’s lives; and the essence of Reformed Ethics is the explication and application of the Moral Law.[14]

The Psychology of Learning and Non-Ratio-centric Thinking

Have you had one of “those” discussions with someone? You know the kind I mean where for once you are at the top of your form with your brain pumping out ideas like a fire-hose and your arguments shooting down the oppositions like clay pidgins? And as a result, you nicely, kindly but devastatingly, utterly destroy the other side in a discussion? And when the smoke clears, and debris settles, you look to your “opponent” expecting him to admit “defeat” and acknowledge that your position was the “better” position; only to have him stomp off in a “huff?” You know you won, everyone around you knows you won, and if this had been a formal academic debate you are convinced the judges would have said you won. But the person you were most concerned about convincing refuses to concede the point.

Or maybe take this situation from the other side; have you ever been in a discussion where the other guy clearly was winning the argument? Let’s face it, he was smarter, better read, more articulate in his presentation and if this was a formal debate you knew you would lose; but inside, you also knew that you were right! No matter how fast he talked, or big words he used, or experts he quoted, you just knew that what he was saying was dead wrong but, at the time, you just could not prove it!

Granted, the explanation for the above may be no more complex than obstinate, human pride; i.e., the Proverbs have a lot to say about people who refuse to be corrected, will not take counsel, and must always be “right” even when they are wrong. But most of us will admit that at times, if we ever engage in the kinds of discussions mentioned above, that we have been on both sides of the issues; and sometimes (not always) we were right and the other guy was wrong. In the first scenario we could prove we were right because our arguments were better. In the second situation, the problem was that we could not prove our position was the right one, but it was still “right.” In short, something other than reason was convincing us of whatever it was we believed.

Let me see if I can give a couple of personal anecdotes to illustrate the above. When I first confessed Jesus as Lord (as a young man in the Air Force), it was an entire life and worldview transformation. At first I understood very little about the Christian faith, but I knew that the Bible was God’s Word and once I was given a New American Standard Version and could get past Elizabethan English of my Authorized Version, and actually understand the text, a whole new world opened to me. The Christians around me had told me that I should do was read the Bible and pray daily; and I did so. I read through the New Testament within a week, and then re-read it again and again.

And every day at meals a group of Christians would meet together for an hour or so and talk about what the Bible taught. Now as a new Christian, I was concerned that this wondrous new faith I had “found” might one day dissipate; I knew my own heart, that I did not have a good track record of completing things and when I came across such verses as “and he who endures to the end shall be saved” it scared me. If my new-found salvation depended on my perseverance, then I was in real trouble.

So when I broached this subject with the “older” brothers, I was immediately assured that I could not lose my salvation because I had “eternal security.” Now, see what they were doing? My brothers, Lord bless them, were trying to resolve my personal concerns by giving me theological comfort. They were telling me, only what had been told to them.

But the problem was that they really did not understand the issues any better than I did. As we talked (and it was not a “debate”) I would bring up various verses and ask them how their doctrine of “eternal security” dealt with all those passages that seemed to teach something completely different. And though I was a “baby” Christian who knew nothing of theology, I did believe the Bible; and what I was reading there did not seem to “jive” with what my brothers were teaching.

Now, let us remember that these men were all fairly young believers themselves; all they really knew about the Christian life was what they had been taught in the “Design for Discipleship” fill-in-the-blank Bible study booklets passed out by the national organization. I am sure that if I had been in a good, Reformed church, then my questions would have been quickly and easily answered. But that of course was part of the problem. The only “Calvinists” I met in those days were nasty, critical people who were more concerned about telling me why the Majority text was the only “true” text and that I was bound to hell if I continued using the NASB rather than the KJV.[15]

The point was that when we discussed these things I could easily refute my brothers’ position, tie them up in contradictions and get them so stuttering, spitting mad that going back to work seemed like a blessing. Now, in this case I was not trying to convince anyone of anything; but rather trying to rationally evaluate what I was being taught by the agreed upon standard (the Bible); and at least then, my argument was “better” than theirs. Yet, I never convinced anyone to abandon the doctrine of “eternal security” by my “rigorous” application of logic (not that this had ever been my attention). And interestingly enough, eventually the entire line of discussion was ended (as it often was in those days) by my brothers insisting, “Well you’ve just got to accept that by faith!”

Now for what it is worth, that answer infuriates me as much today as it did then because it implicitly removes any point from rational analysis. It is a cheap shot designed to stifle intelligent discussion. If a position is “true” then it ought to be able to be verified; right? After all, if we say the Bible is true and that the Bible teaches “X” then therefore, we ought to be able to examine the Bible to see whether it really does teach “X.” And self-evidently, if the Bible cannot be demonstrated to teach “X” then therefore, “X” is not true. However, to claim that the Bible teaches “X” and then fail to support that position from the Bible and yet insist that you just have to accept the claim, is in fact to replace the Bible with some other source of truth. Is that clear?

But what if the Bible really DOES teach “X” but the proponents do not understand the Bible well enough to be able to prove that it really does teach what they say it teaches? If someone like myself comes along and tries to refute “X” he may well win the argument, but he is still wrong! In this case my brothers were right, and I was wrong,[16] even though reason, logic and the “evidence” were all on my side. The problem was that there was “evidence” that neither of us understood or considered; evidence that would have changed the entire argument. But reason led me to a wrong conclusion, and the lack of reason actually protected my brothers from changing a position that was true, to one that was contrary to the Scriptures.

Now, let’s use another personal anecdote from the “other side.” During the same time that all these discussions were going on amidst the brethren, I also met a number of people from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, including non-Trinitarians such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. At first, I did not see the difference between their brand of “Christianity” and the “orthodox” type I was learning in Bible study. After all, to be a Christian in the military means living a life that is considerably different than one’s non-believing peers. People interested in “spiritual” things and attempting to lead a “moral” lifestyle, initially appear to have more in common with each other, despite their different theological constructs, then their pagan, fouled mouth, booze-guzzling, skirt-chasing barracks’ mates.

And of course, once you start talking “theology” with Mormons and the like, they very quickly attempt to subvert your understanding of God. And unlike the average broad evangelical whose entire religious education is based around warm fuzzy feelings that God loves you and accepts you just as you are… these groups aggressively train their young people in an attempt to recruit new members. And intellectually, their first assault is always on the deity of Christ; for if they can undermine belief in His unique nature, then logically, there is no reason to be an evangelical Christian as opposed to a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness; besides the Mormons seem to have an unending supply of really cute younger sisters that are just dying to meet a nice young man like you-“if only you believed what we believe…”[17]

Since the non-Trinitarians were trained to undermine orthodox Christian “doctrine,” and I wasn’t trained to defend it; almost always when discussions occurred, I was on the losing side. They would do to me, what I was doing to my brothers; point out holes in the Biblical basis of my thinking by showing me texts that seemed to destroy the concept of Christ as God; i.e., the Emphatic Digalot’s interlinear translation of John 1:1 showing that in the original Greek it says “and the word was “A” god” rather than the standard translation “and the word was “THE” God” or that Jesus was the “beginning of the creation of God.”

And I did try to argue just as effectively as I could; but quite frankly, any impartial observer would have to agree that I didn’t do very well. The opposition won those arguments hands down, on points if not substance. However as I was arguing against them, even though I could not rationally refute their case, I knew that they were wrong, that their conception of God, especially in their definition of the nature of Christ was a whole different worldview than the one that had saved me. I knew it, I just could not prove it; and it would take years before I could rationally present a solid, unimpeachable Biblical case for the deity of Christ.

So now we have both sides of the same issue; people can believe wrong things for all the right reasons and people can believe right things without rational support. Clearly then, no matter how important reason[18] may be there is some other dynamic at work in our faith. The “reason” of course has to do with the nature of logic and “reason;” reason, as we mentioned earlier, is simply a process of determining whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises- i.e., if this premise is true and this premise is true then that conclusion must be true. And again, as we have stated, the process is only as good as the validity of the premises; if something is wrong with the premises then no matter how logical or rational we may be in our reasoning, the conclusion will be wrong.

Now here is the dilemma; when we reason theologically, we start with individual premises from Scripture, adding this concept to that concept and then logically arrive at this theological conclusion. However the conclusion itself is dependant upon whether the original premise is a proper interpretation or understanding of the original premise. If we have misunderstood a premise for any reason, then logically, the conclusion will be in error. The misunderstanding could result from something as simple as a word in Hebrew or Greek that was obscure at the time it was originally translated, or the basic premise could be flawed because it deals with some aspect of the nature of God that is just beyond finite human understanding.

As an admittedly silly example, occasionally over the years I have run into a controversy with certain brothers who still use the Authorized Version.[19] In their Bibles, 1 Thessalonians 5:22 reads “abstain from all appearance of evil.” They read the word “appearance” and naturally interpret it to mean “that which looks like something else.” Therefore they logically conclude that if something looks as if it is evil, then we are morally bound to refrain from it, even if in fact it is not evil. I have heard brothers wax eloquently on this principle suggesting for example, that Christians are forbidden to go to movies; because some movies are evil, and if you go to see Bambi then it might appear as if you also approve of and go to pornographic movies.[20] Or as another hilarious example of Christian legalism; one must never shop in a store that sells alcohol because it might appear that you were buying booze as well as groceries. And of course, there are all sorts of other applications-these are just the most outrageous ones-all predicated on the assumption of the definition of the word “appearance.”

However, in reality, most AV users do not read Elizabethan English as well as they think; words change in meaning over time, and the word “appearance” does not mean today, what it meant then. Modern versions commonly use the word “form” here rather than “appearance,” which better translates the actual Greek word. The word “appear” originally meant something like “come into being” as in “suddenly the ghost appeared before me.” In other words, that which was once invisible has now become visible; hence it took on “form.” Thus, what Paul probably meant in the Thessalonians passage was that Christians should abstain from allowing any evil to “appear” or come into being. The literal translation of the word is “that which is seen, form” and Vines’ defines it as “that which strikes the eye, that which is exposed to view.”[21] Vine goes on to say, that 1 Thessalonians 5:22 ought to be translated “abstain from every form of evil i.e., every sort or kind of evil (not ‘appearance’ AV). This meaning was common in the papyri, the Greek writings of the closing centuries, BC and in the New Testament era.”

The example above is not definitive, but rather illustrative of a genuine concern in doing any kind of interpretation. The Bible is true; but our understanding of what the Bible teaches may or may not be true depending upon whether or not it accurately reflects the revelation of God. In this case, a simple examination of the standard Greek grammars helps to clarify an interpretation; but those grammars themselves are based on the presuppositions and scholarship of the academics who wrote them. How do we know they always got it right?

Now, getting back on track, our main point has been that we sometimes know true things despite reason and that reason itself can lead to believing false things, if our premises, based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture are wrong. We can perhaps gain a better understanding of this if we understand that God is the only objective basis of all knowledge; “in Him we live and move and have our being” as Paul says, quoting a pagan poet.[22]

God as the great I Am stands outside of time and space; He is “transcendent” meaning “above” or “beyond” creation. This God speaks through His Word to us, revealing His nature, being, plans and purposes (called “special revelation”). Granted, the Bible says that God also speaks to all men through His creation (Rms 1:18-20) revealing some things about Himself; a revelation that sinful men suppress in unrighteousness. But our main point here is that God is distinct from His creation and even His own revelation. While His Word is true (Jn 17:17), it is true because it reflects or reveals His true nature (Jn 17:3). Thus, it is possible, nay even likely that we might come to His revelation and misunderstand it, misinterpret it or even misapply it; but God is still true; and that truth is the very ground of all creation.[23]

God “breaks into” this creation both through natural and special revelation. In fact, the occasional correct conclusions that some pagans come to about God stems from the fact that all creation was made by God to reveal His glory (Psa 19:1) and therefore, by necessity, occasionally they have to get some things right. Thus, even when they strive hardest to suppress God, the truth still occasionally breaks free and bubbles up. Now, when this happens, we sometimes hail the pagan as a “genius” and his thoughts as “brilliant” even when rationally, he is being inconsistent with his most basic presuppositions. But there would be no progress in secular philosophy, science, art, literature, etc., without these non-rational “breakthroughs” that stem from the objective nature of the true God breaking into human consciousness.

Thus allow me to suggest that reason is not the only way that men (both Christian and non-Christian) apprehend truth. Truth, because it is an attribute of God stands independent of our intellects, our minds or even our reasoning. And occasionally, men come to KNOW the truth apart from reason; sometimes even despite reason.[24]

Various Ways of “Knowing” –Human Brain Research

For example, let’s take another of those side trails in our discussion and look at the function of the human brain as an illustration of how some people “know” true things apart from “reason.” First, there is a phenomenon called “savants” who are people that possess incredibly mental abilities but are often sub-normal in intelligence.[25] Most people saw the Dustin Hoffman movie “Rain Man” which was about an autistic man who had the incredible abilities to count things. He could look at say a pile of toothpicks on the floor and instantly apprehend the correct number. In the movie, “Rain Man” is taken to Los Vegas where he makes some serious money for his brother by “counting cards.”

Now whether or not one ever saw the movie, the phenomenon is real; there are people who can do incredible computations faster than the average person can punch numbers into a computer; literally, such people are human “calculators.” And the phenomenon is not just restricted to numbers; there is on file, scientifically verified studies of all sorts of incredible acts of humans “knowing” things apart from reason. Now, not for a moment are we suggesting that these people have some sort of ESP or in theological terms, that God (or some demonic spirit) is “revealing” things to them in some “spiritual” way. No, all we are saying is that there is an entire class of people who know “true things” but do not use reason to arrive at that truth.

The scientists do not know how this phenomenon works; they just know that most of us when faced with a column of figures have to use the rules of arithmetic we learned in grade-school to painstakingly add them up to arrive at the right answer. Savants can not only add them up, but also divide them, multiply them, find the logarithm or square root or any other mathematical permutation you can think of; and do so virtually instantaneously.

In earlier days, such people might well have been thought to have been possessed by devils or something. And no one knows just how wide-spread this ability may actually be; “smart” savants might well have learned at an early age to hide their abilities to fit in with what is acceptable. The movie “Amadeus” (about the life of Mozart), even though not terribly good history, shows what at least some people can accomplish with natural, inborn abilities; and the price society sometimes inflicts on them for their “gifts.”

Neurologists and the like are just beginning to get a picture of how the brain operates and what they don’t know could fill volumes. But a lot of research has been done over the past century on brain function, especially as it affects human learning, and how we process information. This subject matter deserves a book from a Christian perspective in and of itself, and here we can only summarize some of the latest theories.[26]

First, our cerebrum, which makes up about 85% of our brains, is the area connected with speech, emotion, personality, logic and thinking. The cerebrum is divided into two “hemispheres,” right and left, which are connected by a neural bundle. For our purposes, what is interesting is that each hemisphere appears to control different kinds of perception and thinking. While the quote below is quite long, it is not difficult to understand and is worth your careful reading.[27]

“The left hemisphere governs our ability to express ourselves in language. In over 95% of right-handed people the left hemisphere is dominant for speech. The figure is somewhat lower for left handers, approximately 70%, but still highly significant. The left hemisphere is better then the right at recognizing sequences of words and letters. It controls our logic, our reasoning, and our analytical thought processes. It can focus on details; however it has difficulty comprehending the whole picture.

“The perceptual functions of the right hemisphere are more specialized for the analysis of space and geometrical shapes and forms, elements that are all present at the same time (not so sequential like language). The right hemisphere is the creative half; it can “see” the whole out of parts, thus allowing us to connect puzzle parts together. The right hemisphere also plays an important role in the comprehension of emotion. In an experiment where subjects were shown pictures of a faces with strong facial expression, the right hemisphere was able to discern the expression more accurately then the left hemisphere. In addition, an experiment was done where subjects listened to verbal messages said with different emotions. The messages were presented to each ear separately. When presented to the left hemisphere, the subject was more accurate with regards to the verbal content of the message. However the right hemisphere was more accurate at identifying the emotional tone of the voice.

Ehrenwald (1984: 16) has classified important differences between the hemispheres as follows:

Table 1: General Left-right brain attributes

In certain kinds of epilepsy, physicians have found that if they “spit” the two hemispheres of the brain by cutting through the connecting neural material, they can stop the seizures. However in doing so, they also found that the patient no longer perceives the world quite the same way. For example, “in one experiment,[28] a word (for example “fork”) was flashed so only the right hemisphere of a patient could receive the information. The patient would not be able to say what the word was. However, if the subject is asked to write what he saw, his left hand would begin to write the word “fork”. If asked what he had written, the patient would have no idea. He would know that he had written something, he could feel his hand going through the motion, yet he could not tell observers what the word was. Because there is no longer a connection between the two hemispheres, information presented to the right half of the brain cannot convey this information to the left. Interestingly enough, the centers for speech interpretation and production are located in the left hemisphere. Similarly, if the patient is blindfolded and a familiar object, such as a toothbrush, is placed in his left hand, he appears to know what it is; for example by making the gesture of brushing his teeth. But he cannot name the object to the experimenter. If asked what he is doing with the object, gesturing a brushing motion, he has no idea. But if the left hand gives the toothbrush to the right hand, the patient will immediately say “tooth brush”. [end quote]

I recall reading about another experiment, wherein a patient with a “spit-brain” was flashed a picture which said “stand up.” The patient immediately stood up and started walking out the door. When the experimenter asked the patient “why” he had stood up he answered something to the effect, “I wanted to get a coke.” Now watch what happened here; one side of his brain (the right hemisphere) correctly received an instruction which it was able to understand and act on. But when asked to explain his actions, the left-hemisphere provided a rational, logical and plausible explanation; an explanation however that was contrary to fact. He got up because he was following the instruction of the researcher. But since the two hemispheres of the brain were not able to communicate, the left hemisphere created an explanation, a justification for his actions. His left-hemisphere did not really did not know why he was doing what he was doing, but provided him one with a rational, justification anyway.

Now, what does all this mean for our purposes? Well, the more we learn about how the brain operates, the more we realize that “knowing” is far more complex than we ever thought. Normally, we think of us and the outside world as two entities and that we apprehend the “outside,” through our senses, evaluate the data with our brains (hopefully rationally, but sometimes not) and act appropriately. The “ratio-centric” approach to life would assume that if we could only improve our “thinking” or the way that we process the incoming data according to the rules of logic and reason, the better decisions we would make, the more moral people we would become and paradise would return.

What the scientists are discovering though is that data received from the senses goes through an incredible interpretive process before our minds can deal with it. Our brains are not like a computer where one simply inputs the data and the correct conclusion is spewed out. Instead, the way we see things, and the way we evaluate what we see is terribly complex and is not straight-forward at all. “Reason” is only a part of how the brain processes information and in the split-brain study noted above can actually create rationales for behavior rather than actually explain the behavior.

In effect, the neurologists and brain specialist are demonstrating through split-brain experiments what empirical psychologists have been studying slightly differently but to the same ends in researches on learning and cognition. In my “Critical Thinking Skills” college course I list a number of research findings demonstrating how people commonly misperceive or misinterpret data. For example, studies show that we do not treat all data equally; data that confirms our pre-existing beliefs tends to be given much more weight than data that would over-turn them. Or as Van Til the theologian-philosopher might have put it, our presuppositions determine our conclusions.

Thus all three areas of research, brain function, psychology of learning and philosophy concur that something other than “pure reason” is operating within us as we think about the world. This should not surprise Christians since God said basically the same thing, through Solomon 3000 years ago, for as a man “thinks within himself, so he is” (Pvbs 23:7). But our point here is that something within a man, affects how he thinks about himself, the world around him and the God who governs all.

Even more germane to our purposes though is that if the scientists are right in that different hemispheres of the brain “think” differently, it might also have a direct application to our original questions (you do remember those, don’t you?). Since reason, which appears most commonly to be associated with left-hemisphere thinking, is not the only way that men apprehend truth, what if some people tend to “think” more with their right hemisphere?

For example in gender studies, some research suggests that women tend to be more “right-brain” oriented than men, who tend to be “left-brain” dominant.[29] Now set aside for a moment whether this can be proved or will be sustained by further study, let us just assume it for a moment. If women tend to be more “right-brain” dominant which is the hemisphere associated with “gestalt” or “holistic” thinking, might that not help explain why women think differently from men? Every husband has personal experience of his wife often knowing things by “intuition” that he has to painfully reason to understand. And every woman has known the frustration of trying to get her husband to understand something that is so obvious to her!

Our point here is not to find scientific justification for calling a woman “illogical” or “emotional” but that often, she knows things to be true, but no more arrived at that conclusion rationally than the savant did when he instantly found the square root of the circumference of the Great Pyramid divided by the logarithm of one solar distance. All he “knows” is that he was given a bunch of numbers and the correct answer “appeared.” He does not know why the answer is true or even how he arrived at that truth; he just knows it is true. And in the same way, often women know things to be true, even if they cannot explain why it is true. A savvy husband learns to trust his wife’s judgment, especially regarding people because, intuitively, she tends to “read” them better than he does.

And if all the above is true, then it may help to understand how so many Christians can have incomplete, inconsistent and even erroneous rational understandings of the faith and yet are still Christians in every sense of the word. For example, one of my favorite authors is C. S. Lewis; and not just for his fiction (which is superior). Lewis’s serious, non-fictional works were profoundly important to me as a baby Christian; finally, a Christian who could think! But anyone familiar with Lewis’s theological writings knows that he often starts with some very flawed premises. His view of Scripture is especially weak, seeing the first ten chapters of Genesis as “myth” in his view, not much better than the pagan originals they were probably derived from. He willing accepts that the history of the Old Testament may be compromised and flawed, even contrary to fact. He feels free to sit in judgment on the Psalmists, saying that their psalms are not only “sub-Christian” but in some cases the thoughts expressed were “sinful” and arrogant. He does accept the historicity of the New Testament (mostly) especially the incarnation and resurrection. But in his view of the Bible, Lewis is no evangelical;[30] and if more evangelicals read his serious works, he might not be nearly as popular as he is today.

Yet, despite the fact that he begins with the wrong presuppositions, Lewis often comes out with the right answer. In other words, his faith is better than his theology. Now, we are not here trying to do an exhaustive expose of Lewis’s views and it would take an essay longer than this one to prove all the above; but my point here is that most of us who have read Lewis understand that often he is profoundly in contact with some truth and expresses it so powerfully that despite the flaws in his theology, there is much value in his writings. But the “truth” he arrives at is despite his erroneous presuppositions-in fact the way he reasons to the truth despite the wrong premises is often fascinating to observe.

And while Lewis might well have been an exception, like the savants we discussed earlier who haven’t a clue why their conclusion is the right one, perhaps the same phenomenon occurs every day to a lesser degree with all those non-Reformed folks out there. For if we assume that the process of theology is the center, then clearly, wrong ideas and bad reasoning means that their conclusions, and their faith, are immediately suspect. However, what if intuitively, “right-hemispherically” these Christians actually believe the truth; and the problem is that they cannot express rationally (with the left-hemisphere) the truths that they unconsciously apprehend?

Many of us are aware of historical studies showing the “feminization” of American Christianity since the advent of revivalism. Revivalism as it replaced Calvinism did so in large measure because it appealed to the “emotive” aspects of the American Romantic era. Thus, broad evangelicalism has been in the grip of a religious movement that may have emphasized “right-hemisphere” thinking for the past two centuries. As a result, Christians may have been indoctrinated into “thinking” about their faith in non-rational terms. If true, this does not mean that their religion is necessarily flawed, but it might explain how they can be so comfortable with non-rational formulations; they inherently and implicitly “grasp” the truth-but have never bothered to work that truth out in the left-hemisphere.

Now going back to our illustration of the godly man trusting in the “intuition” of his godly wife; this same man also knows that though his wife often gets it “right” sometimes, she can also get it “wrong.” Just as a man can rationally add up a column of figures and make a mistake in his calculation, women can make a mistake in their intuitive thinking as well. In fact, I have argued in the past that if this understanding is correct, it is consistent with the creation ordinances wherein God created Man male and female as complements; they both need each other. The man’s focus on left-hemisphere thinking is a check on the woman’s intuitive grasp. In the same way, since rational thinking can sometimes become rationalizing thinking (creating a line of reasoning to justify something, rather than subjecting the conclusion to critical analysis), a woman can “know” what is right even when her husband is trying to justify some ungodly course of action. Think about it; Eve sinned because she was deceived (1 Tim 2:11ff); Adam created a line of reasoning to justify his sin (Gen 3:12).

And in doing theology and doctrine, the same principles would apply. If something is true, it is true because in some way it reflects the character and nature of God. And all that we know about the character of God is what He revealed in His scriptures. Therefore, the rational discipline of theology is a means of verifying the claims of intuitive “heart” religion. However, the conclusion would also follow that some people might intuitively “grasp” or “know” God in a right hemisphere kind of way; and then do an inadequate job when trying to explain or defend this belief with the left-hemisphere.

As a supporting line of evidence for the above, let us consider the heretic. A heretic is not just someone with bad doctrine; even really, really bad doctrine. Anyone who has spent time doing evangelism and seen God bring people to saving faith knows that “baby Christians” often come up with the most amazingly heterodox doctrines because they do not understand what they are reading in Scripture. They lack both knowledge and experience, and sometimes even the rational tools needed, to do good theology for themselves. However, such people can also testify that once you correct these young believers, they immediately reject their weird doctrines and hunger for more of the truth.

The defining mark of a heretic is not bad “theology,” but an obstinate, arrogant and prideful refusal to accept good “theology.” Like the fool in Proverbs, heresy is the unwillingness to be corrected; e.g., “Do not rebuke a fool lest he hate you, correct a wise man and he will love you.” The essential difference between a heretic and somebody with “bad” doctrine is that the heretic will not repent and is willing to split the church to maintain his error (the word “heretic” actually means “schismatic” in the Greek).

So then, would that mean that if we correct someone’s theology and they refuse to repent and acknowledge true doctrine, that they are “heretics?” Not necessarily; after all, if people believe wrong things because of non-rational thinking, then they are unlikely to be corrected by reason. A Christian, could apprehend the truth with his right hemisphere, be unable to express that truth in his left hemisphere and yet still refuse to accept our rational correction simply because we are not communicating in a way he understands.

Remember, something other than just reason makes us believe what we believe. We pick up ideas, assumptions and beliefs from a variety of sources and all of us are susceptible to weighing the evidence in light of those assumptions. All of us know certain sweet people who will take whatever we say as “gospel” and believe it accordingly because they trust us. We did not convince them with our brilliant reasoning; we convinced them because of our personal charisma. And let us face it, we all have favorite pastors, writers, theologians or what-not that we like and believe not just because of what they say, and how they say it, but because of who they are.

Cults and such take advantage of this human dynamic by preying on just those sorts of people who are most susceptible to personal charisma or the force of personality. But allow me to suggest that all of us respond to this dynamic in some measure or another; have you ever heard a sermon preached with impeccable theology and brilliant reasoning that nevertheless still left you “cold?” You could not argue with the “truth” that was being preached but still, it never “traveled the eighteen inches from your head to your heart.” Psychologists of learning have suggested that every abstract idea must be developed with at least one concrete example or most students will not understand the concept.[31] The examples provide a right-brain holistic medium around which the abstract, theoretical concepts can be understood. And perhaps this is the reason why so few of us can work in fields requiring abstract thinking (such as physics or higher math); there are some concepts that just cannot be explained in concrete examples and only a few people can therefore understand them.

Thus, maybe, when a Christian refuses to change his beliefs when we talk with him, he is not rejecting the message, but rather the messenger? In other words, just because we are convinced through reason and sound argumentation does not necessarily mean that he will be convinced in the same way. And so he is not necessarily rejecting the truth so much as rejecting the way we communicate that truth? Now granted, there is a difference between two brothers in the same church under the same covenant and doctrinal standards and the kinds of discussions you get into with a Christian brother at work. In the first case, you have something other than pure reason to appeal to his right-hemisphere; you have the communion of the saints, the already accepted standards, the verification of other brothers, etc., that all go to “convincing” him. In the second case however, none of these “non-ratio-centric” mechanisms are available; all you have is reason. And if his “left-brain” is not as well developed, then no matter how logical, rational or even Biblical your arguments, he will remain unconvinced. How could he not be otherwise since he is thinking about these things in non-rational ways!

And perhaps this is one of the reasons why Reformed theology is so unpopular today; Reformed theology is inherently ratio-centric and therefore appeals to those who are also ratio-centric. In a competitive church market, people come and go as they please trying to find a church that “fits.” If the preaching is theological and academic, appealing to the “left-hemisphere” and Christians have never been conditioned to think with this hemisphere about their religion, then the message, no matter how technically accurate just does not effectively communicate. Occasionally of course we have that rare individual who has impeccable theology and personal charisma and we end up with a “successful” Reformed church. But the more “main-streamed” Reformed pastor who loves the Reformed faith and tries to communicate it the best he can, ends up only communicating with all the other left-hemisphere types out there (i.e., doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and other professionals).

It is no good saying people ought to like doctrinally precise preaching; in a competitive market, whoever delivers the desired goods at the best price is going to “win.” And we Reformed types are in the most part, losing the audience perhaps due to an unconscious assumption of understanding the truth and the best way to convey that truth.

Recently I was watching PAX TV which features one of the most “popular” preachers in America today. His church is growing so fast they are buying an old sports stadium to hold the 50,000 people that attend weekly services. So occasionally, I listen in to his sermons to see what he is doing that is so attractive to so many people. Now, when I say this, please don’t accuse me of arrogance or anything, but honestly, I could out-preach this guy on the worst day of my life. He has basically one major point (and not necessarily a bad one) and then spends the rest of the sermon giving anecdotes, illustrations, personal stories and the like that make that abstract concept come alive. Now I am not being condescending when I say that what he spends an entire sermon discussing, I might include as a footnote. And I am just as convinced that any of my brother elders could “whup” this boy with one lexicon tied behind their backs in terms of explaining the Word of God.

And yet, for some reason, for all the brilliance, theological acumen, philosophical sophistication, not to mention accurate Biblical exegesis of we Reformed preachers, his church is a dynamo of activity while ours are more often like worn out AAA batteries. Basically as I attempted to analyze what he was doing, I think that unconsciously he is appealing to people who approach Christianity from the right-side of the brain. His stories, anecdotes and pleasing manner presents a “picture” of Christianity, of God, of Jesus that is greater than the sum of the individual statements. And as the camera pans on the congregation, you can see how they are moved by the message; something is coming through to them powerfully and it isn’t an intellectual construct based on theological propositions. Yet, they do want to love and serve God, and bring their lives into conformity with His will.

For the past thirty years I have struggled to understand the revelation of God and tie it together into a complete, comprehensive and consistent worldview. And in the Reformed faith, especially when married to Van Tilian presuppositional philosophy and postmillennial eschatology, all the pieces fit beautifully together. However, much to my surprise, it appears that the vast majority of Christians are just not interested in that worldview, are happy with a fragmented, inconsistent and even sometimes compromised worldview and are not about to change any time soon. Even conservative, home-schooling Christians who share the identical values often prefer a broad evangelical fellowship which they openly acknowledge to be theologically deficient because they “like the worship.”

Clearly, we are not reaching our brethren. And without sacrificing one iota of Biblical truth, maybe it is time to reexamine how we present that truth in ways that actually communicate to “right-hemisphere” oriented Christians.

Interestingly enough, the Bible itself would seem in some ways to confirm a “non-ratio-centric” approach. We have already discussed how the Bible is not written as a theology textbook. Instead, God conveys His self-revelation through stories, poetry, songs and pragmatic wisdom literature. And when theology is introduced (say in the letters of Paul) the theology is almost always offered in the context of a problem, trial, question or difficulty facing real churches. The Bible is not an abstract book because God is not the abstract, pure “ideal” deity of Ultimate Reason the Greeks posited. He is the “living” God who loves and interacts with His creation. He became flesh and dwelt among us. He speaks the truth about Himself not just in abstract theoretical, philosophical or even theological concepts, but in acts of loving-kindness. Even the most basic aspect of His nature revealed in the Divine Name in context was in answer to Moses pragmatic question “Who shall I say sent me?”

The unstated assumption of ratio-centric Reformed theology is “if we only get the ideas right, then everything else will follow.” But what if the situation is the reverse; what if we get a person’s life “right” and then the “ideas will follow?”

Thus allow me to suggest that reason is a great servant, but a harsh task-master and that true, Biblical religion revolves not around our theological understanding, but rather about God Himself who is beyond our understanding. True Christianity requires both spirit and truth.

Implications for Doing Theology

If our analysis above holds up, then certain necessary implications spring to mind. The first is the way we do theology. Not for a moment should we ever back down from applying reason to our study of the Scriptures, but we might want to be a little humbler in stating some of our conclusions. God’s Word is true; but clearly, sometimes our understanding of that Word may be more or less true. The more inferences we have to make from a statement of Scripture, the less confident we should be in asserting our conclusion.

Let me use an admittedly silly example that nevertheless illustrates the problem; I believe the Bible teaches literal Six-Day creation. I believe the Bible teaches a literal Adam and literal Eve in a literal Garden. I believe that God judged the world in the Great Flood saving only Noah and his family and the animals. And I am quite willing to support Creation-Scientists in their work of trying to reconstruct the physical sciences in terms of paleontology, age of the earth, anthropology, etc. And because I believe that death was impossible before the Fall, I cannot see where the theory of evolution has any credibility whatsoever.[32] And therefore as a necessary inference, I am forced by logic to acknowledge that things like dinosaurs were contemporaries of man.

And because I believe these things to be “true,” I expect to find evidence of this in Scripture. Some of the brethren think they have found evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible in its references to Leviathan and Behemoth. And while I find these ideas most interesting (and a lot more credible than modern translators who insist that these were crocodiles and hippopotami), nevertheless I want to be a bit reserved when discussing this because most such passages occur in poetic or apocalyptic literary styles which by nature are often highly symbolic. I do not need to find evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible even if the idea itself is intriguing. And I do need to let my presuppositions about the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs to lead me to insisting that just because something looks like a fossilized human footprint in the same geological layer as a dinosaur footprint is a human foot (especially when a Christian anthropologist points out the five anatomical reasons why it cannot be a human footprint).[33] The inference may be valid, but I need to temper it accordingly.

If we admit that sometimes our reasoning may be inadequate to comprehend the truth that God has revealed, maybe it ought to be enough to simply affirm what Scripture affirms; deny what Scripture denies; and in some cases simply say “Thus sayeth the Lord.” It seems to me that often people react not so much to Reformed theology as to some of its implications; and the implications may or may not always be true. The further we follow an implication, the less authority it ought to have. It ought to be OK to say at certain points, “I do not understand all the implications of this; but I can at least demonstrate that this is what God actually said.”

For what it is worth, this was how I came to the Reformed faith. For years I struggled against the the doctrine of predestination. The view of God that was presented to me by “Calvinists” seemed cold, stern and contrary to the God who had saved me. Usually, I could hold my own in an argument with Calvinists but what really discolored their “doctrine” was the degree of intellectual arrogance that seemed part and parcel of their system. Eventually, I came to teach a course on Romans; by the time we finished chapter nine, everyone in the class, even the instructor, became a Calvinist. How did we all come to adopt a system that initially was contrary to our predispositions? During that course I had also taught hermeneutics, repeatedly told my students that no theological paradigm should replace the text itself. If we come to Scripture and it seems to conflict with what we know to be true, we do not abandon the text, we certainly do not distort the text to try and make it fit; instead we receive the text because what God said is all that is important. If a text of Scripture causes problems for our theology, well, so much the worse for our theology; let God be true and every man a liar!

Hence, when actually teaching Romans chapter nine I was forced to deal with some information that in the past could be conveniently glossed over, ignored or twisted. But now, faced with what God said here, I had to admit defeat, humble myself and say, “Oh Lord you are too great for me, I do not understand, but even though I don’t like it, this is what you said. Please change me so that can rejoice over your truth.” And as a result the Scriptures were opened to me in a way that I had never before seen.

And I could multiply these examples of doctrine after doctrine being ripped apart and cast aside as God taught me to submit to Scripture and leave my presuppositions outside. Over those long painful years when I traveled in broad evangelical circles it struck me that most Christians use the Bible as a theological text book and did not actually read it as Scripture. They go to a proof-text here, a passage there, stitch them together and create their “doctrine” accordingly. I have known imminently successful pastors who have never actually studied the Bible in their entire lives; all their great teaching and such comes from books about the Bible-but never the Bible itself.

When I actually made it over the last hurdle in becoming Reformed, a younger brother who had come to faith in our ministry in England, came to visit one weekend. He was ecstatic because he had found a church where “they preach just like you do” and he asked me if I had ever seen the church’s doctrinal standards; the Westminster Confession of Faith. Well, I had read the confession as a requirement in a theology class 15 years before but since we were not tested on it had simply skimmed it and set it aside.

This time, because my brother was attending this church I felt a sense of moral responsibility to read through this little book again just to make sure what he would be hearing from the pulpit was “true” to Scripture. And as I read the Confession I was shocked; here in clear, simple propositions was the truth of Scripture that I had been working on trying to understand in personal Bible study over the past decade. Chapter after chapter of the Confession clearly stated what I believed the Scriptures to teach-but more concisely, wisely and articulately than I could ever express it. The reason why I love the Confession is because I love Scripture.

But in relating this story, sadly, many of those in the Reformed camp have never done what I did; study the Bible for themselves. And sometimes, it even appears their allegiance is to the Confession or the Reformed Faith, not to the Scriptures. Now admittedly this may be a bit of an over-statement, but if so, it is not too far off the mark.

If in fact we “know” both by reason (left-hemisphere) and by “intuition” (right-hemisphere) in my mind this is very close to what Jesus said about “spirit” and “truth.” But even if you do not buy that definition, I think you will accept that the best way to approach God’s revelation is by a “whole-brain” methodology; in other words Christians simply need to read their Bibles over and over again, letting their minds be saturated with Scripture. I suspect that much of the truth of Scripture is apprehended not by making logical constructs but simply in the “feel” or the “gestalt” of what was written.

Most of us recognize that poetry is not “literal” propositional truth, yet sometimes, actually communicates truth more powerfully than the most precise logical presentations. In the same way, good art (not the modern kind) grabs us in ways that prose, no matter how well-written, can never hope to do. And the Bible is art as well as prose. Just think of the way that God gave His law to Israel; there is a summary (the Moral Law) and then all those pesky obscure “case-laws” which we are commanded to meditate on (Josh 1:8). Apparently God expects us to think about these laws, meditate on them, and discuss them constantly (Deut 6:4ff). And as we do so, we gain wisdom-but these laws themselves cannot fully be apprehended simply by logic; i.e., “in this situation do this but in THAT situation do that…” Instead, wisdom in the Law is to be understood as a process of mulling over certain principles and relating them one to another. God deliberately did not categorize the laws the way we do today (civil, moral, ceremonial etc.) but mixes them together. Now, I cannot prove that this is the reason why He did so, but the way the Law is written seems to require both right and left-hemisphere thinking. Yes, there are logical, theological propositions, but there is also the “gestalt” or the “whole” that is greater than the sum of its parts.

And the only way to “see” this is not by using the laws against false weights and measures as a condemnation of the fractional reserve banking system; or even trying, as the New England Puritans did, to create a systematic legal code. Instead, it requires a whole different way of looking at the world by saturating our minds with the totality of Scripture. I am not a literary critic and managed to test out of all my English classes in college so probably I cannot communicate this as well as others might do. But when one reads good Christian literature there is a “truth” one apprehends that makes one want to be holier, humbler, more gracious and kind to others, more fervent in love and service to God that the best theology books ever written cannot hope to emulate.

Have you ever read a good biography of some great man? It might well have covered all the facts and figures, names, places and dates but still, at the end, you never really “got inside his head.” And then have you ever actually read a collection of that same man’s personal letters? There can be a profound difference in the picture of the person you obtain depending on how you approach him. By reading his personal correspondence, or some essay he wrote on some subject that was especially important to him, suddenly you “feel” as if you know this person. Granted, the best biographies do both, they give us facts and figures but also something of the personality. And is this not exactly how God revealed Himself to us? We get a “feel” from Scripture when we go over it again and again that gives us a “truer” picture of God, a “right-hemisphere” holistic grasp that theology, even great theology does not provide.

Of course, good theology based on rationality checks these “impressions” or “pictures” and prevents a “feeling” from leading us to actions and ideas contrary to God’s Word. But that is my point; true Biblical religion ought to have both components.

Perhaps by failing to provide this component and focusing instead on a ratio-centric approach, we unintentionally created a “spiritual” vacuum, making people susceptible to Pietism, Revivalism and eventually even Pentecostalism. Christians are looking for more than just right knowledge, but also an “experience of the transcendent.” What I have been trying to demonstrate in this essay is that this desire is not illegitimate but rather a fundamental function of how God made us. And if we do not provide a genuine experience of God supported by reason, some people, many people, will seek for it someplace else.

Thus, when we do theology, it is not enough to have mastered the original languages, read through the weighty works of the past, parsed all our verbs properly and created impeccable theological constructs. Instead, the totality of the Scriptures ought to be our focus and sometimes, maybe the only way to truly understand its message is by experience itself; i.e., by simply submersing ourselves in Scripture every day, thinking about Scripture and talking about Scripture.

But let me take this one step further; since it appears as if God defines “doctrine” as essentially “righteous living” then perhaps we ought to approach theology not so much from the perspective of speculating about the nature of God, but rather in understanding His Law, and how it is to be lived? This of course is the context of the Deuteronomy 6 passage, the Joshua 1:8 passage, John 14:21, Matthew 28:19-20 (“teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…”) and on and on and on. Clearly God considers right living as important as right theoretical constructs.

Therefore, the theologian and the pastor both may want to shift the focus of their work from the abstract to the concrete; Francis Schaeffer asked “How Should We Then Live;” but never answered his own question. And in the moral quagmire that is the entire modern world, maybe its time for some of us to put aside trying to use the Law of God to form political, economic or scientific policies and instead focused on how he expects us to live, day by day? Amazingly, even in Reformed churches with impeccable theology, I have found a depressing tendency to gossip, slander, whisper and backbite. I see people unconsciously adopting upper-class American social values rather than attempting to acquire Biblical ones. Reformed Christians often hold bitterness, anger and contempt for others. Pride and arrogance are widespread with some men willing to destroy whole churches, ruin reputations and split households rather than admit they were wrong.

And perhaps the problem is that we who love the Law are so busy trying to reconstruct the world, that we fail to see that we first need to reconstruct our own lives. An emphasis on ratio-centric theology allows us to divide life into an intellectual sphere where we can pat ourselves on the back for our superior understanding, using our superior reasoning skills to criticize others while rationalizing that we are OK.

Thus, perhaps it is time for the theologian to go to the Scriptures and look at the Law, rather than “theology.” Let him use his great knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, of ancient cultures and civilizations to hone our understanding of how God revealed He expects us to live. Let him use the principles of rational analysis to explain and amplify the Law, as the Westminster divines attempted in the Larger Catechism. And then maybe we will see another great revival.

Implications for Fellowship with Non-Reformed Christians

And here perhaps is a way that we can reach those who profess Christ but who do not accept Reformed doctrine. Our “common-ground” is Scripture which records the mighty acts of God in history and His self-revelation, His redemption and His coming judgment. For what it is worth I believe we who have been granted a better understanding of the faith have a moral responsibility to help our brothers to discover that same understanding. But (and I say this as one of the offenders) I do wonder if constantly criticizing and nit-picking at their errors is the best way to do this? For if they do belong to Christ (and their confession ought to be enough to consider them so) then God is working in them to change them, sanctify them and grow them, just as He is working is us. Our responsibility is to help them, not condemn them, be patient and kind to them, for in the end, only God can grant “repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 2:23ff).

And one of the most effective ways to help them is to build on the foundation that we both accept; the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures as the revealed word of God. And if they accept that, then we can teach them the practical applications of the moral law (provided of course that we understand that law and how it really works out). You see, my assumption is that those who truly belong to Christ, want to obey Him (Jn 14:21). Their theology might be getting in the way of that obedience, or they might not be able to articulate “why” they should obey. However, if we “left-hemisphere” types provide for them a logical, rational justification without the personal condemnation it usually entails, we might be able to win them.

Perhaps a great place to start might be opening a counseling ministry and Reformed churches encouraging their elders to become qualified in Biblical counseling as a means of ministering to the broader Christian community. In my experience, most evangelical churches do not want to deal with people having problems and are eager to refer them to someone, anyone for counsel. Why not let them send such people to us? For although we might not be successful in getting them convinced of Reformed theology, we will help them learn how to live by Reformed ethics-which is the Moral Law of God. And as they live out the life, God may grant them further grace.

Furthermore, we Reformed Christians can stop writing just to ourselves. We need to take seriously that those are our brothers out there and discover creative ways to communicate the truth to them, in ways they can understand. We need to write for them, not just ourselves and we need to tailor that material in such a way that they can understand it. I am increasingly of the mind that churches need to see that part of their ministry, just as important as sending out missionaries, is finding ways to communicate with the broad evangelical community. And therefore churches need to set aside portions of their budgets to finance their elders writing and speaking ministry or even creating videos that communicate Reformed theology in a way that reaches the “right-hemisphere.”

Also, since the right-hemisphere is more “artistic” oriented, then we need to place a higher priority in creating good Christian art. This is again, too long to go into, but true art is beautiful because it reflects the person and nature of God. By creating good art, we can reach people in ways that theological propositions cannot; but that will require investing in Reformed artists, encouraging them and seeing that their work has a vital role to play in the total ministry of Christ’s church. In the movie “Field of Dreams” there is a “truth” that exists independent of the theological inaccuracies. And perhaps, “if we build it, they will come” is something we ought to consider.

Implications for Personal Devotion

Every Christian wants to “know” God, to be “closer” to God; to have “intimacy” with God. The Lord Jesus Himself said “and this is eternal life; that men might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (Jn 17:3). But the question must arise, “what does it MEAN to know God? Often, in the ratio-centric Reformed world, we tacitly assume that “knowing” God means “knowing things about God” and therefore the more we learn about Him, the closer we become to Him.

Charismatics and many broad evangelicals however usually assume that “knowing” God is an intimate, personal experience of God-usually apprehended through some inner “impression” or “still small voice” we hear inside our heads. Again, this is no small issue and really goes to the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

However, let me suggest that our discussion of “doctrine” and differences between the ways the two brain-hemispheres “know” things might have some direct implications for what it means to have a personal relationship with God, especially as manifested in our personal devotions. Hence, in one respect I suspect that our brothers may be reporting something “true” they are personally experiencing with their right-hemispheres, even though we may not agree with our left-hemispheres with their explanation.

First, to better understand the phrase Jesus used in John 17:3 we need to see how it is echoed and amplified by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:9; “But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by Him…” Paul defines “knowing” God here not in some rational or mystical sense, but in the sense of being “known by” Him. In other words, to “know” God means that God “knows” you. The use of the word “know” in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures has a slightly different range of connotations than our English word. Most commonly when we use the word “know” we mean something like having “understanding” or “information” about someone or something. However, to “know” (Greek ginosko) at least the way the Scriptures uses the word, “indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known and hence the establishment of a relationship… the knowing suggests approval and bears the meaning ‘to be approved’… the verb is also used to convey the thought of connection or union between man and woman.”[34]

Most of us are familiar with the Authorized Version’s using the verb “to know” as a “euphemism” for “sexual relations.” However this was just technical accuracy on the translators’ part and not some quaint, old-fashioned way of talking around a “delicate” subject; this is the actual word God inspired to be used and it really does communicate something about “sex” and “knowledge” that is lacking in our English definition. Sexual relations are the most intimate way that two human beings can “connect” on both a spiritual as well as physical level; in fact the physical “connection” is actually in some ways more “spiritual” than our modern sex-crazed culture appreciates and one of the reasons why God considers sexual sins to be so serious (1 Cor 6:16ff).

Thus, “knowing” God, at least in the way this word is used in Scripture, refers more to the relationship we have with God than it does the kind of information we have about God. And try as hard as I can, I simply cannot substantiate from the Scriptures the almost universal assumption that Christians make that this relationship somehow involves some inner, subjective communication with God. Many Reformed, Evangelicals and Charismatics assume that this personal relationship means that in some way, God “speaks” to them personally, privately and subjectively. And thus “growing” in one’s “relationship” with God means becoming more “friendly” or “intimate” with God wherein we learn to “hear His voice” ever more clearly.

But where is this understanding of being known by God ever actually taught in Scripture? Sure, there were exceptional individuals like Moses with whom God spoke “face to face;” but the Bible itself declares that no other person[35] ever had this kind of “personal” relationship with God other than Moses! Of course Jesus had this kind of relationship and God did speak supernaturally to His prophets and apostles; but the almost unconscious assumption is that God will speak to us just like He spoke to them! But where is this taught in the Bible itself?

A better “model” for what the Christian can expect in His personal devotions is David, the man after God’s own heart who was the special recipient of His love and grace. And David talks eloquently about his “personal relationship” with God in the many Psalms he was inspired to write. But when one examines the actual historical narrative sections of Samuel and Kings, where do we find evidence of God speaking directly to David in some “still small voice?” Sure, David receives special revelation from Samuel and other prophets. In many cases it appears He received guidance through the umin and thummin.[36] But when David waxes most eloquent about his special relationship with God and actually defines that relationship, he does so in places like Psalm 119 wherein he praises the Law of God as his strength, comfort and hope. In other words, David, in his “daily walk” was not the recipient of special revelation from a “still small voice” subjectively whispering into his “heart;” but instead, approached knowing God the same way we do; through meditation on God’s Word. And because he trusted God’s revelation, and believed in His providence, he could “see” God working in the world and in his own life. Thus, his personal, intimate love-relationship with God was not composed of some subjective, special revelation, but rather in understanding the Law, meditating on it and trusting that God would act as He had promised; “we walk by faith, not by sight.”

And yet, Christians throughout the ages testify that they do “meet” with God in some special, subjective way that is more than just an academic study of the Scriptures. Were they deceived or perhaps does right-hemisphere thinking offer an explanation of this common Christian experience? Reformed theology is sometimes caustic in its condemnation of those Christians who say “and God spoke into my heart.” But really, may such statements not have a legitimate place in our faith if we understand that the right-hemisphere may be apprehending something by gestalt that is more than the sum of what our left-hemispheres have deduced?

For though we reject the idea of special revelation in this age, at the same time, perhaps what our brother is really trying to say is that as he reads the Scriptures and meditates on them, as he thinks about God and prays to Him, he is apprehending something that pure reason and logic alone might not reveal. He becomes convinced that He “knows” something from God that he did not arrive at by logic or reason and it may well be that in His providence, God is “speaking” to him by granting him some measure of understanding and application that goes beyond left-hemisphere, ratio-centric reasoning.

Granted, reason based on the teachings of Scripture must still be the check by which such claims are verified; I am not suggesting an irrational, subjective experience become the norm. In fact, at heart, is this not our greatest concern for our Charismatic brothers that they unintentionally can become the victims of a subjective, non-verifiable experience that can lead them anywhere? At our best, do we not want to help our brother take his passion for God and strengthen it by helping him to better understand the God who is “speaking” to Him? And do we not also admit that in our own devotions, we want that same kind of intimacy and passion?

Thus instead of just condemning some brothers for emotionalism or subjectivism, perhaps we need to allow that God may “speak” through the gestalt of our right-hemispheres; as we read and meditate on His revelation, He puts things together in ways that we using only logic and reason just cannot do. We do not want to live our lives on feelings or impressions but there may be a way of living life in the milieu of Scripture, so controlled by its total message that we then almost intuitively “know” what is right because we are so steeped in its message? And is this not exactly how the great “holy” men of the past became holy; by prayer, meditation and application of God’s holy word?

Earlier we made the point that “doctrine” is defined in Scripture not so much having right thoughts about God but more in context of righteous living before God. Let me suggest that one implication of this would be that every time we read the Scriptures, our PRIMARY concern ought to be “Lord, what would you have me do?” In other words, we need to learn how to see the Bible as more than theological statements about God and rediscover it as what God demands of His people. After all, that is basically the way He wrote His revelation. The Scriptures were given by inspiration “that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17): not just to “puff us up” with knowledge (1 Cor 8:1ff). If we come to the Scriptures and do not find at least one application to our daily lives, our thoughts, our words, our deeds, then in essence we have wasted our time, and God’s.

Thus, the man who wants to be “known by God” and be “intimate” with God does so by meditating on the Word of God, especially on how God expects us to live before Him. Unlike our father Adam who refused to obey God, we are to become like the Second Adam, Jesus (Rms 8:29) who obeyed God in everything. And as we meditate on His commands, we are confronted with our sins, and driven to our knees in humility to confess those sins and trust in Him for our forgiveness. And then, as we trust in His promise that we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, we grow closer to Him, more dependant upon Him because we are known and loved by Him. This is not just an intellectual, ratio-centric comprehension but rather an intimate, personal, right-hemisphere kind of knowing. And throughout this process, God in His providence, working through the means of His creation, puts things together for us that our limited human reason could never hope to discover on its own. No, it is not “special” revelation in the sense of direct communication with God; but it is personal, intimate and loving communication as God speaks through His inspired Word.

Implications for Preaching

And perhaps in the same way we ought to think about how we preach; it is too late for me, I am so ratio-centric that I think it will be nigh impossible for me to change. I like logical propositions that explore an idea, defend it, or refute it as necessary. But at the same time I can appreciate that sometimes, other men, have a way of reaching me viscerally that mere logical propositions never can. At this point, let me just suggest that we go one step further in our sermon preparation; let us use our reason to ensure that our sermons are true and accurate to Scripture and then, let us explore how best to communicate what we have found in ways that appeal not just to the left-hemisphere oriented, but grabs the “hearts” of men as well.

Most “good” Reformed preaching reminds me of great academic lectures; the material is well organized in a logical format, the pastor makes a interesting point about the significance of the Greek or Hebrew, references the Confession or some great theologian of the past and then, maybe tosses in an anecdote or two as an illustration. But as accurate as these kinds of messages are, perhaps there is more to great preaching than simply speaking the truth; great preaching really does change lives. Granted, only the grace of God can take a sermon and use it to penetrate to the center of a man’s heart. However, maybe He does not do so as often as would like because we need to rethink how we preach from the bottom up. I do not pretend to have any answers here, just the observation that there may be more to this work than many of us has assumed. Perhaps God chooses not to use this kind of accurate, ratio-centric preaching to move the average person today just because it appeals only to one side of the brain-when His own revelation included both?

And the same principle we noted in our section on personal devotions would apply to the messages we preach; what is it that God would have His people do as a result of our preaching? It seems to me that this is the problem with much of the preaching I have heard over the years; sure it sounds good and all, but how does this apply to my life? What sins does God want me to forsake, what actions does He want me to adopt? As a result of what has been said this day, how am I supposed to bring my life better into conformity with His will? Yet the unstated assumption of many otherwise fine sermons I have heard is that if you only hear the truth then the application is self-evident. This is the fallacy of Greek idealism; that right ideas constitutes moral action. Well, it didn’t work for the Greeks (their most brilliant philosophers were often the most immoral, depraved men of their times) and it does not seem to work for the Reformed world either.

Implications for Evangelism

It is almost a cliché that Reformed people do not do evangelism. One of my favorite anecdotes comes from some Reformed Baptist brothers in England who decided to do some street “evangelism” in the town square by handing out tracts. One brother was seen to be standing there just holding the tracts but not actually passing them out. When queried he replied, “God’s Elect will take a tract whether I hand them out or not.”

And I admit personally that ever since fully embracing the Reformed faith MY evangelism has suffered. You see I want to give people the truth and that means going into a lot of theological and theoretical detail. Literally, the last time someone made a profession of faith in my presence it took six months of Bible study, discussion, reading etc. Now is it really reasonable to expect that one basically has to take the equivalent of a college semester’s worth of theology before one can make a profession of faith?

Paul and the other apostles went into a pagan city square, proclaimed a gospel that overturned every philosophical worldview, commanded men to acknowledge Christ and saw results! Today, it seems like we would probably set up a Bible institute where interested students could take a degree program in theology before we would challenge them to confess Jesus as Lord! Surely, there must be a better way.

Perhaps now is the time to answer the question we asked earlier about “how much doctrine does a person have to understand before they can make a credible confession of faith.” Despite the comments we made earlier about the “doctrinal” content of the phrase “Jesus is Lord” let me suggest that a ratio-centric understanding may not be required. All men according to Scripture intuitively and innately know that God exists but they “suppress” the truth in unrighteousness (Rms 1:18-20). All non-Christian thinking therefore has as its most basic purpose an attempt to deny this knowledge; much like a rebellious child screws his eyes shut and places his hands over his ears when his parents are trying to tell him something he does not want to hear. According to Paul in this same passage, the entire intellectual, philosophical and theological history of the human race is a self-conscious attempt to deny the existence and authority of the one true God.

Therefore in evangelism, we do not have to necessarily tear down the entire pagan world and life view before they can “understand” the gospel because innately they already do understand and are just suppressing the truth. Now, some men are more consistent in their rebellion than others and create intricate intellectual smoke-screens by which they attempt to hide from the truth; and those smoke screens may need to be destroyed by apologetics; but here we are talking about evangelism.

Let me suggest that evangelism does not require “sophisticated” theoretical or intellectual knowledge because the person being evangelized already intuitively knows by general revelation the first requirement for saving faith; the existence of God (Hebrews 11:6). Then, the evangelist proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and men must trust in Him alone for redemption and submit to Him as Lord. Do we really want to argue that before a man can trust in Christ he needs to understand the doctrine of the Trinity? Or can we not say that when the gospel is preached to the Elect that God quickens the heart, grants them faith to trust, even while at the time the individual y may not understand all the implications? And during the process of sanctification does He not grant further grace in opening our minds even as His Spirit works to change our character?

Thus, evangelism need not be a complex, left-brain dominant ratio-centric intellectual process; merely faithfully proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ and calling men to repent and trust in Him. Granted, we do not need a “reformed” version of those semi-Arminian outlines so popular in broad evangelicalism; the ones that ask people to “accept” Jesus or “invite” Him into their hearts. But we do need to rethink how we do evangelism and find ways to share that message without compromising the truth. It has always fascinated me that the one time that the Apostle Paul gives the most powerful, ratio-centric presentation of the gospel, replete with presuppositional apologetics, is also the same instance when he was least successful (Acts 17:22ff). Now I am not trying to tie the results of evangelism to the method of evangelism; God is the only one who can change the heart. But at least we can acknowledge that He does not always require ratio-centric approaches.

Implications for Worship

I have written about worship in other places[37] and do not want to go over that same ground here. Instead, let us just appreciate that there are aesthetic aspects of worship that we Reformed people may want to reexamine. Since our ancestors came out of the excesses of Romanism and man-made worship, some of us may be a little gun shy here. But if truth is apprehended through both reason and “intuition” then good art may have a place in worship, even under the regulative principle.

First, without falling into Roman fallacies, architecture has an effect on us for either good or ill. Without advocating stain-glassed windows or statues, we can start thinking about how the sanctuary is set up and the kind of mood it creates. Most of us consider the place we meet for worship to be of no consequence-but maybe we are missing out on something God built into us and therefore cloud the message? Reformed churches usually self-consciously build plain and simple sanctuaries as a legitimate reaction to what our ancestors saw as dangerous, ungodly and unwarranted human innovations in the old church. But if there is no neutrality, if all creation reflects something about God, then surely it is time to start thinking whether we might want to reconsider some of our assumptions. We do not have to duplicate Rome’s errors in creating edifices that replace the gospel, but perhaps we might want to think and pray about how architecture is to glorify God. While most Reformed churches are struggling just to stay alive, when God does grant His blessing, we should be ready to consider church architecture as a part of how we communicate His truths.[38]

In the same way, just because we love the Psalter does not mean that only 16^th century music should be sung. Music has great emotive power; just think about how movies influence emotions by the music that is chosen; good movies always have great music. And bad music can ruin even the best script, acting or cinematography. So therefore, as we encourage more of our Reformed people to reconstruct the arts, let’s start praying and working to refine our music so that it leads us to better worship God with both hemispheres; great doctrinally sound lyrics that reach the left-hemisphere with appropriate reverent music that reaches the right-hemisphere. Am I the only one who regularly trips over some of the archaic tunes in the Psalter and Trinity Hymnal? Most broad evangelicals find contemporary music styles “worshipful” because that music reaches them in ways that traditional hymns do not. I am not here trying to justify the often deplorable lyrics, or the saccharine sentimentality or self-oriented religion such choruses often display. All I am suggesting is that we appreciate the fact that our music is important and if we want to reach our broad evangelical brothers, we may want to rethink how we approach it.

Let us also move more towards participation rather than observation in worship. Instead of choirs (which most of us are too small to have anyway) why not train the entire congregation to sing in parts (reflecting the different functions of the economic Trinity) in harmony? And without adding one single, non-Biblical element, do we not have the liberty under God’s regulative principle to arrange the elements of worship in such a way that it communicates truth via the right-hemisphere as well as the left? I remember talking to a worthy Christian brother who attended the same dismal worship service I did while we were out of town at a conference. The worship, the hymns and psalms selected, the prayers given, even the sermon preached were dull, drab, lifeless and boring. When I commented to my brother that I did not “feel” as if I had worshipped that day he said, “We sung, we prayed, we read the Word and heard the Word preached; we worshipped.”

Now even I know when to occasionally shut my mouth and this time I did; but what he said sounded to me a whole lot like what the Jews were doing in Jesus day; and which Jesus criticized to the woman at the well. These people did all the right things; but at least from my perspective there was something “spiritual” missing.

As with some of the other implications I am not sure if I have any answers here; just questions. Is there not some way that we can make our worship more powerful by appealing to the right-hemisphere without sacrificing Reformed truth? Even though I do not yet know how to do so, I am suggesting that someone, somewhere, had better figure this one out. Broad evangelicals are rejecting our message because we are not communicating in ways they understand. Surely, there must be a way to combine the two?

Conclusion

In this essay, we have attempted to explore some areas of Christian thought and life that have been neglected by most of the faithful. I am not trying to offer answers so much as ask some questions. Like “iron sharpening iron,” my real hope is to stimulate other brothers to think through these issues and perhaps, see some things in Scripture from a different perspective.

In the end, we think, because God thinks. Logic is a part of the natural world because it reflects something that is intrinsic to God’s unchanging nature. Christians must never exchange a desire for truth for a fluffy religion of subjective personal experience and reason is the means to protect the truth of God.

However, God is greater than our reason alone can grasp. It may be that truth though tested by reason, may well be apprehended by something else. And if so, then we rob the Christian faith of something vital that God has built into us by His creation ordinances. We are required by God to love Him with our minds; but He also requires us to love Him with our hearts as well. Perhaps we have lost the past two centuries of cultural battles because somehow we lost this balance first. Rediscovering the balance may well lead to the next stage of the Greater Reformation.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Studies on the Nature of Biblical Authority
2. Conservative Theology and Conservative Politics
3. Is He Really a Heretic?

A long, meandering essay that probably reveals more about the inner, psychological problems of the author, than it does about the state of the church but we were desperate and so it got published anyway

True confession time; a pastor really ought to be a “people” sort of person; you know what I mean-the kind of guy with a warm, winsome personality, gushing with compassion and kindness; that sort of thing. A pastor probably should be someone who likes hanging out with others, making small talk and actually enjoys being intimately involved in other people’s lives; but I have to admit, this is the hardest part of the ministry for me. I have watched in slack jawed amazement as friends and professional colleagues “work a room;” glad handing people and seemingly fitting right in to whatever social setting they find themselves. I on the other hand, am most comfortable standing in a corner, nursing a Diet Dr. Pepper and watching what goes on around me (and yes, sometimes offering a few, caustic comments out of the side of my mouth). Believe it or not, I am really very, very shy; I completely empathize with the Apostle Paul who said, “For they say ‘his letters are weighty and strong but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible’ (2 Cor 10:10).” Yup that’s me all right; “unimpressive” just about sums up my interpersonal skills.

Now, if during one of these gatherings, the conversation turns theological, or historical, or SOMETHING, I can make conversation with the best of them; as long as the conversation is ABOUT something. But it is kind of awkward to walk up to a stranger and ask, “quickly now, supra or infralapsarian?” It’s the whole concept of “mingling” that I just do not get; and I am constantly amazed at how well some people do it. In my more cynical days, I would have caustically commented that the kind of shallow “relating” that so many pastors seem to do so well gave reverse evidence for evolution; i.e., it sure seemed to me that their actions closely resembled a pack of baboons picking fleas off each other. But that was in my cynical days; I am much better now, thank you.

In self-defense, over the years I have developed my own little strategies for fitting in with a group of strangers; I have my list of ten most innocuous questions such as “what’s your name” or “where’re you from” and “how many angels do YOU think can dance on the head of a pin?” But to be perfectly honest, I am not terribly good at this kind of social mixing and over the years, this lack has probably cost me a lot in terms of making a good first impression or insinuating myself with the “right” people.

Part of the reason no doubt has to do with a conflict between different social mores (pronounced MORE-aes). Social mores are “folkways that are considered conducive to the welfare of society and so through general observance, develop the force of law, often becoming part of the formal legal code.” Any culture, society or organization develops mores or generally agreed upon rules or standards of conduct that are not so much taught, as absorbed. Normally speaking, we develop our understanding of mores through family, education and life experience. All of these help us to develop certain expectations of what determines appropriate from inappropriate behavior. Most of this learning actually takes place when we are very young through the process known as “socialization” wherein we develop certain core beliefs about right and wrong based upon our interactions with those around us. Mores are so “instinctual” that nobody ever has to actually write them down or formally teach them in a class; we just sort of soak them up as we associate with the people around us. Thus, the socialization process by which we develop our gut level understanding of what constitutes appropriate behavior is tied to what we learn from our parents, siblings, and friends.

Furthermore, these mores in turn are often based on the standards of our socio-economic class. Though Americans pride themselves on being a “classless” society, in reality, we have just as many social divisions as any of the historic aristocratic nations of Europe; the only difference is that unlike the Europeans, Americans have never put an upper limit on the individual’s advancement in social status. Admittance to the aristocracies of Europe was dependant upon birth; in America it was traditionally tied to merit. But the classes still exist, and each tends to develop its own particular mores.

And if you fail to meet the standards of appropriate (or inappropriate) behavior on a particular social class, then you will be alienated, ostracized, and made to feel like an outsider; in other words, you are “weird.” For example, I recently ran across some research that suggests that a person’s social class can be identified by the way that he pronounces the letter “r.” The lower-down the social-economic/education scale, the less likely one is to pronounce all “r’s” in a word (which of course really makes us New Englanders look really bad since no one there has pronounced an “r” since colonial times). Now, in casual conversation, you do not consciously make a value judgment about a person based on whether or not they pronounce all of their “r’s” correctly; but subtly, how they speak will affect how you respond to them. People who pronounce all their “r’s” distinctly identify themselves with a higher socio-economic/educated class. If you happen to belong to a lower class, you might therefore tend to think certain people are “arrogant” or “stuck on themselves” or “like to put on airs” and not know precisely WHY you think this way. You cannot necessarily point to something they said or did, specifically, that is evidence of their “arrogance” - you just “know” they are! The real reason could be that unconsciously, you are reacting to their speech; because the way they talk does not meet the standards of your cultural mores, you react to them.

In the same way, if a person does NOT pronounce all the “r’s” “properly,” then when they associate with upper-class types, they may be considered “rude, ignorant, uneducated, boorish,” etc. Now it needs to be remembered that this again, is mostly an unconscious process-a person is not necessarily intending to be mean, nasty or judgmental by making this assessment; but the cultural mores are deeply held assumptions that are rarely ever examined or thought about. Some people just “fit-in” and some people do not and the reason is that sometimes, social mores are being unwittingly violated.

If the whole “pronunciation” thing seems a bit too esoteric let me suggest a different example; table manners. The higher one’s socio-economic status, in general, the more “refined” one’s manners; i.e., upper class, Harvard-educated people are seldom found talking around a mouth full of food. If you are sitting in a nice restaurant, having taken out a second mortgage to pay for a meal the size of two dimes and a quarter, you expect the people around you to behave differently, then they do at a family barbecue. If they do not behave in the way you expect them to, then you are offended and even the most gracious of us cannot help but make some kind of value judgment about the kind of people who violate our social taboos.

What I am trying to get at here is that there is an ongoing, often unconscious process, by which we all make judgments about each other. Some behavior we deem appropriate, and others we deem inappropriate. While we might make some exceptions for very young children, or the mentally handicapped, all of us insist that everyone else must either meet those standards, or face social censures. Since the judgment happens at what is basically an unconscious level, often we do not know just what it is about someone that we dislike, we just know that they are not acting the way that we think they ought to act. If their behavior falls on the extreme end of what we deem socially acceptable, then we call them “weird.”

In the great leveling of social classes that began in the 1960’s, college professors led the attack against American culture by deliberately ridiculing and attempting to overturn certain social mores. Professors stopped wearing ties and white shirts (because such attire was associated with the “establishment”) and instead, dressed in denim to identify with the “proletariat.” Now, in and of itself, what a person wears is really, in the long term, not all that important. But the purpose of professors dressing like their students was at heart revolutionary; an attempt to overthrow the existing social order and create a new one in their own, socialist, image. And of course, for the good of the revolution, male professors also got to sleep with their female students as a practical application of their revolutionary egalitarian ethic.

Now, forty years later, we are living in a culture where the old rules no longer seem to apply, and no new ones are universally accepted. The 1960’s emphasis on individuality (millions of college students listening to the same music, reading the same books and dressing alike, with the same hair styles and fringed leather vests crying out for “individuality” is just too funny) essentially meant that we wanted freedom from the older consensus on morality. But today, there are few, if any universally recognized standards which means that everyone gets to set their own.

And hence we come to the theme of this essay; “weird” people. All of us run into people whose beliefs and behaviors do not fit within our accepted standards of appropriateness; in other words, we consider them “weird” because they violate our social mores. For example, most of us would consider a person laughing himself silly at a funeral as acting “weirdly.”

OK, granted, there is a medical condition called “schizophrenia” which when you actually examine the “symptoms” means “bizarre and inappropriate behavior;” and there is a lot of evidence that this might actually be a real disease caused by brain dysfunction or chemical imbalance. However, here we are not talking about the people who have to line their hats with aluminum foil to keep the space aliens from reading their thoughts. Instead, we are more concerned with how people in general, but Christians in particular act “weirdly” or inappropriately. And granted though there are a few Christians I have known who might have benefited from some psychotropic drug treatment, usually, extremely bizarre behavior was an attempt to hide from their sin. Leaving that group aside, there are always a number of other Christians though who just do not seem to “fit in;” their beliefs, their lifestyle, or even their ability to properly relate to others just seems “weird.”

Now, since cultural mores have been undergoing constant revision for the past forty years, it is harder and harder to actually identify a widely agreed upon, objective standard in our broader culture. Hence, many Christians think other Christians are “weird” “strange” or whatever, not because they actually ARE bizarre, but simply because they have imposed their own, subjective standards of appropriateness on others. The more “provincial” one’s social group, the easier it is to mistake local standards for universal principles. For example, having grown up in small towns in Maine where most families have lived there since colonial times, there are a great many local customs that have achieved the status of a social more. “Mainers” are often contemptuous of “outta-statahs” (i.e., “out-of-staters”) just because these people don’t know the local customs. Just try to get directions from any old “Mainer” and watch his perplexity in trying to communicate something that is so self-evident to him as to be a ludicrous question. He cannot tell you to “turn left on Main, go three blocks and turn right on Second Street” because he simply KNOWS where everything is-he just does not reason in terms of specific directions, and considers your need for such explicit detail to be further proof that you are just another “summah complaint.”

Christians however, by the grace of God actually have an objective standard in the moral law of God. Since the Law is the expression of God’s unchanging nature, therefore we ought to be able to define and establish a set of appropriate behaviors that can be universally accepted.

The problem is that since the Law of God has been largely defined out of the average Christian experience, many people are victims of the secular culture and do not even realize it. For example, they accept as “normal” that children are a burden and limiting family size is a “blessing,” that Christian children should go to public schools, that teenagers naturally rebel against their parents, that kids need “friends,” that romantic love is the only genuine basis for marriage, that the only rewarding work is that which they personally find meaningful, that church exists to make them feel good about themselves, etc.

And if you do not accept and conform to these widely accepted standards; then you are “weird” and will not “fit in” with those who hold to them. Now Christians who accept these beliefs have never tested them by Scripture or even examined them for utility; they are simply social mores into which they have been socialized and now they assume them as “normal.” Almost every home-schooling family has experienced some degree of ostracism from friends, family and fellow church-members at one point or another. Every large family has on occasion received dirty looks, or even received caustic criticism from certain people who question their “wisdom” of bringing so many children into the world.

To a large degree, part of finding the “right” church means being able to identify a fellowship whose basic social mores agrees with yours. If you find such a church, then you “fit in” and feel a part of a broader community. Even if the teaching is less than adequate, or the worship not entirely to your “taste” you tend to stay put, simply because it is so hard finding people with whom you can “belong.” If you are in a church that has different social mores than yours, then regardless of the orthodoxy of their theology or the effectiveness of their programs, you often will feel isolated and alienated-you may not know why, but your basic world and life-view, what you think is “appropriate” behavior is unconsciously being challenged by others.

When I came to faith in Christ more than thirty years ago, I understood that my previous social mores were largely inappropriate. The language I used, the values I had, the music I listened to, the way I used my money, my time, etc., were all “out of sync” with basic Christianity. There were NEW mores that I needed to adopt in order to fit in with my Christian new sub-culture. For example, I was taught that I had to pray every day, confessing my sins to God. I was taught that the Bible was His inerrant, infallible word and that I had to read it, study it and conform my life to it. I was even taught that I was supposed to be “nice” to people and that giving those I found annoying a “holy punch to the throat” was not an appropriate mechanism for conflict resolution. In effect, I was being “socialized” into the Christian community and in order to “fit in” I had to learn a whole new way of thinking and living.

However, it did not take me more than a few years before I discovered that Christianity has more than its own share of weird people in it; people who claim the name of Christ but yet do not meet the accepted standards of appropriate behavior. Yet because they had made a profession of faith, were baptized and regularly attended church, they had to be accepted as “brothers” just because I suspect that nobody else knew what to do with them.

Furthermore, I found that often, by simply trying to live consistently with what the Bible taught, I was often considered “weird!” I did not understand that there were two different sets of mores in operation; the ones people CLAIMED to accept-the ethical standards of Scripture and the ones they REALLY accepted: which were often quite different. Again and again, I found myself in trouble with people, not because I was in sin or anything, just that I didn’t know the “real” rules by which most Christians operated.

Just one example; the Bible says, “Confess your sins, one to another.” I was taught (and read in the Scriptures) that Christians are to be the most humble of all people, willingly acknowledging their sins and seeking forgiveness for offences when necessary. Since this was completely contrary to my “old” life of denying, lying, justifying and rationalizing my sin, I self-consciously tried over the years to learn how to admit my sins, confessing and asking forgiveness of God and others. I was so thoroughly convinced that this was basic to the Christian life that I have taught this same principle in seminars, at conferences, during sermons and written about it regularly. Never once has ANY Christian EVER disagreed with me, often giving me a hearty “AMEN!” when hearing me discuss this fundamental Biblical way of living.

But in REAL life, MOST Christians will do ANYTHING except admit they have sinned! To the contrary, while Christians are most willing to acknowledge that they are sinners in general, they can become quite offended if you ever actually point out any of their specific sins! In fact, the commonly assumed social more here is “I’ll pretend you didn’t sin if you pretend I didn’t.” In fact, I well remember one occasion where I was speaking to the board of a very prestigious organization and one of the members rebuked me saying, “Brian, you always have to ask for forgiveness; doesn’t that tell you that there is something seriously wrong with you!” Wow; talk about the dangers of being vulnerable! But he was right from one sense. His social more was that in the church, you can NEVER actually admit to any sins; to do so, puts you at risk by every other judgmental Christian out there.

Christians can sometimes act like cannibalistic piranha that will devour each other in an instance if they perceive anyone to be weak. One of the earliest clichés I remember learning about Christianity is that “we tend to shoot our wounded.” Most Christians have developed as a core value that “I must protect my pride at any cost” and therefore, conflicts go unresolved, bitterness builds up and intimacy and love are lost because we cannot do what God so clearly commands us to do; admit we sin and ask forgiveness.

Over the years, I have pastored whole churches full of people who might qualify as “weird” because despite the orthodoxy of their confession of faith in Christ, in real life, they insisted on living according to their own, arbitrary, inconsistent standards and then imposing those standards on others. They were “weird” because their stated values were often in direct conflict with their actual values. I was “weird” because I actually tried to live and teach consistently with those standards! Often, at the root of various conflicts was these unstated mores by which people were living, and judging each other.

At the extreme end of the spectrum are those “Christians” who live consistently contrary to God’s law. These are people who are always having trouble with relationships, are often depressed, anxious or even suicidal. They usually have terrible marriages and dysfunctional families with children who are uncontrolled and undisciplined. They are easily offended and in order to get along with them you have to learn to walk as if the floor was covered with eggshells; or land-mines. These people may sometimes be laymen in the church or even officers; but the way they look at life, they way they deal with things is NEVER productive or conducive to growing the Kingdom because, well, they are “weird.”

Sometimes these people are attracted to “weird” theologies or beliefs (see my essay on “Alternative Medicine”) just because “weirdness” attracts “weird” people. But ultimately they qualify as “weird” not because they happen to have some wacky ideas, but because their way of looking at the world is irrational and based ultimately upon their own subjective standards.

Years ago I formulated what I modestly call Abshire’s law of ministry; “weird people drive out normal people.” When a group allows, encourages or fails to correct “weird” behavior, the “socially challenged” start crawling out of the woodwork. These are people who do not want to grow in faith or love; they just want a place where nobody will confront their weirdness. They are often very proud, arrogant people, even though they will willingly share their “problems” or “trials” with anyone at any time; they love to talk about themselves. They are seldom teachable and you cannot shift their opinions no matter how carefully or analytically you try to reason with them. In other essays, I call some of these people “spiritual vampires” because they can suck the life out of you and the church. They are looking for an environment where they can be the center of attention, but where they will never actually DO anything differently than they have always done. And if you confront them, no matter how kindly, gently or lovingly, then YOU become the monster, the legalist, the harsh, nasty person because we all know that the Christian life is about love and acceptance right, no matter how disastrously we live our lives?

As long as these “weird” people are allowed to run free, they bring the entire Christian faith into disrepute. Their children are usually hellions, and often openly rebel as teenagers, dressing, acting and living like their pagan peers (using drugs, fornicating, etc). Their marriages are often dysfunctional, with the women running both the family and the church. Gossip, slander, whispering and backbiting are common in churches with weird people since openly confronting offenses is not a part of their social mores. And if they are not stopped, soon they take over the church, fellowship or ministry.

“Normal” people, that is those who just want to belong to a church where the truth is preached and people can live in peace together, are soon driven to distraction. Nothing ever seems to get done, because the “weird” people are always getting in the way. The pastors and elders spend so much time pouring water on fires, that the church never has time or energy to actually develop the ministry. Sins go un-confronted, problems are never really resolved and of course, the people in the church never actually grow in grace and godliness.

Often, the church develops a new social more where they believe that their primary function is to coddle the “weird” people rather than lovingly help them repent of the sins. More and more, the “normal” people feel vaguely dissatisfied but are often unsure why. They just know that there is something “off” with their fellow “believers.” The sermons begin to seem insipid because if the pastor every actually preached something definitive, it might offend the weird people. The fellowship is usually just not very comfortable because at all costs, problems must be buried since actually resolving them would make the weird people uncomfortable. But if you cover up problems, rather than resolve them, then there is always a lack of true intimacy, trust and love. Slowly, the normal people begin to drift away, looking for something that better “suits” them, unaware that the real problem is that the “weird” people are now in the majority; which makes the “normal” ones the outsiders.

I have seen this dynamic at work many times, in many different churches over the years. Usually, it began with a sympathetic elder or pastor, whose ministry was based on feelings rather than clear, Biblical principles. Such individuals will spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to “help” weird people (possibly because it makes THEM feel important), but nothing ever changes in the person’s life because the leaders refuse to actually confront sinful behavior. Furthermore, if you actually helped someone resolve a problem and grow, then they wouldn’t need YOU anymore!

Oh, such elders might confront adultery or theft if they came across it, but not anything like those who are self-indulgent, prideful people who want to gossip, slander, and whisper. The elders don’t want to confront witchy, dominating women, or weak, emasculated men. They do not want to correct fathers who are raising disrespectful, rebellious children. They refuse to instruct chronically impoverished families living beyond their means (no, that’s what the deacon’s fund is for!). In other words, these elders want to be compassionate and kind and do not want to disturb people’s comfort zone by confronting any actual sins that are making people’s lives miserable.

And so, over time, the whole culture of the church changes to accommodate this basic presupposition; nothing can ever be said at any time that will make people uncomfortable. If people are uncomfortable, then they might leave! So, the normal people find that they no longer fit in. Often, the very people who were once the backbone of the fellowship finds that they are now out of step and quietly begin to look for someplace more “normal.”

Kinds of Weird Behavior

Now in a clinical sense, “weirdness” can basically be categorized as inappropriate thinking, inappropriate emotions, inappropriate speech and inappropriate actions. In all these areas, a “weird” person’s thinking, feelings, speech and actions are not in accordance with what they should be. Weird behavior is not necessarily the same thing as sinful behavior (though a weird response to something might well also be a sinful one) but rather, something that just does not fit properly.

Let me see if I can give an example to make this mud a bit less murky; if a man looks at a beautiful woman exposing her “charms” by wearing a skimpy bikini, lust is a sinful response, but not a weird one. Men are supposed to be “turned on” by women; that is how God designed us. But God also designed us to love one woman for all our lives. Thus, it is “normal” for Christian men to turn their eyes away when a scantily clad woman walks by, because he is in submission to God’s law regarding personal purity. But if a man looks at a woman and his response is to wonder where he can buy shoes like hers, then he is weird!

OK, ok, that was a cheap shot, a silly example and perhaps not all that helpful. How about this; someone directly insults you, calling you a bad name. A “normal” person might become angry and upset in return. Depending upon one’s personality type, others might be hurt, and maybe even depressed that someone would think so little of them. Both responses are “normal.” However, a “weird” person is hurt and offended if someone forgets their birthday, or doesn’t bubble over with enthusiasm when they meet by accident on the street. A “weird” person is someone who is offended at any perceived slight. A “weird” person is someone who calls you to complain about their husband or wife, but is offended, hurt and angry if you tell them that they ought not gossip about their mate, but actually try to help them resolve the problem Biblically!

In other words, “weird” people tend to have over-reactions to slights, to brood over offenses, to make something out of nothing. It is not so much a rational problem (i.e., a problem with reasoning clearly about a situation) but a spiritual problem; at heart they think the world must revolve around them and their feelings. And when it does not, then they are offended, hurt, angered and embittered.

When the Inmates Take Over the Asylum

Now as previously mentioned, there are those who have “weird” beliefs about various things in life; specifically, those beliefs that are not widely held in modern Christian culture. But I would not consider a person “weird” simply because he may believe something out the mainstream. For example, everyone reading this essay is considered “weird” by popular culture because we believe in the Lordship of Christ, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the physical resurrection, six-day creation, etc. And there are many positions that some people hold that though may seem “weird” to many, actually have a rational basis. No, the difference between a “weird” person and someone who holds an unpopular belief has more to do with a basic character problem; the truly “weird” person at heart wants to be autonomous. Thus he may find unpopular, counter-cultural beliefs attractive, just because of this basic character defect.

The “real” definition of “weirdness” is an inappropriate and unacceptable social response. For example, someone wants to share their frustration, anger or bitterness with me about another. When I ask them graciously, kindly and gently if they have actually TALKED to that person, they become upset with me. I am “cold” and “legalistic” and “unsympathetic” because I will not give them a shoulder to cry on. Yet, when I try to explain that gossip is SIN, serious sin, then I become “mean” or “cruel.” Now, seldom will these people actually say this to my face; it usually comes around via the back-door through someone else. I then wearily have to track down the slanderous report, personally confronting the individual and asking them if they actually said, what has been reported to me that they said. They then become defensive and self-justifying; usually writing me long, bitter letters detailing my personal and professional short-comings before resigning from my church, or filing charges against me at Presbytery. Never, I repeat, NEVER, will these “weird” people actually sit down with me and share their concerns and try to work out a resolution. No, I am a “mean” person because I dared to insist that they have to obey God. And they are “weird” because they refuse to do, that which is basic to Christian ethics regarding relationships.

I have actually lost friends when I simply said, “I cannot hear your complaint about this person; now if you like I will go with you as you talk to them about your problem here; but I cannot listen to a bad report about them.” Literally, within a few days, I have gone from being a close, intimate, personal friend, to being HATED, slandered and even, in some cases, professionally ruined. Some Christians have actually instituted personal campaigns to destroy me BECAUSE I violated a widely accepted Christian social more that says gossip is acceptable.

Now I realize I am being a little self-indulgent here and may appear a bit whining when I share these illustrations. But I do so not out of a sense of self-justification, but to demonstrate that this problem of “weird” Christians is real, and a danger to the health and advancement of the Kingdom. I have even been told by professional colleagues, “Brian, as long as you keep insisting on people obeying Christ, you will never have a successful ministry.” Did you get that? If I just got rid of that pesky, personal application thing, and just preached and taught in academic generalities, all my problems would go away!

And my friend here has a valid point; whether I realized it or not, my stubborn insistence that people have to actually OBEY Christ is violating a fundamental Christian social more! The average modern Christian wants to be told that God loves and accepts him, just as he is. He wants to be thrilled with some new spiritual experience, intellectually stimulated by interesting sermons and essays, or wants to be confirmed in his belief that modern culture is going to hell in a hand-basket; but he refuses to accept personal responsibility to DO anything about it! You know, something radical and horribly difficult such as taking leadership in his home, or a wife respecting her husband, or doing daily family worship or just trying to resolve problems biblically rather than being bitter and gossipy…

Dealing With “Weird” People

I wish I had some surefire way of dealing with weird people that I could pass on; but if I knew that, I would a whole lot more popular than I am. However, there are some general principles of Scripture that if followed, will at least keep you on God’s good side.

First, when interacting with others, try to determine if your personal response to them is based on absolute, Biblical standards, or your own, subjective cultural mores. It would do no harm if all of us spent a little time occasionally hauling out our presuppositions for examination. One of the major side-benefits to doing “secret worship” the way we recommend is that every day, God gets a chance to work you over in your quiet time, as you think through a passage of Scripture. Again and again, our experience has been that when men spend quality time every day meditating on God’s word, the Lord God is gracious to profoundly and deeply change our thinking. We learn how not to assume quite so many things, and be a little more gracious in dealing with other peoples’ sins, because we learn just how gracious God is to us.

In a sense, there is a great deal of truth to the idea of “tolerance” that our modern, populist culture keeps insisting on; the problem is their underlying presuppositions. Tolerance, Biblically speaking, means that when something is not a violation of Scripture, learn to “live and let live.” The Westminster Divines describe this as “liberty of conscience” meaning that if God has not legislated in an area, neither may we. People can believe all sorts of things that may well differ from what we believe, but it does not make them wrong, silly, stupid or even “weird.” This of course will require us to learn how to be gracious and kind with one another, especially when we disagree with each other. It means learning how to appreciate someone for whom and what he is, despite the fact that he may not see everything exactly the way we see things. But this is really an application of Christian charity; loving people whose beliefs in some, unimportant areas differ from ours.

The first century church had within it both patricians and peasants; and they had to learn how to live together in love and true, Biblical fellowship despite their cultural and social class differences. Their unity in Christ was far more important than their differences either as people, or as social classes. Hence, their example ought to motivate us all to be a bit more generous with one another, taking Paul’s instruction seriously that in our personal relationships we must be patient, kind, not jealous or arrogant, nor seeking our own. Let us all try not to be provoked by others or take into account a wrong suffered but rather bearing all things, believing all things hoping all things and enduring all things (cf. 1 Cor 13:4-7). In more contemporary language, we all need to lighten up a little sometimes, and not take things quite so seriously.

Secondly, good, honest Christian fellowship delights in the truth (1 Cor 13:6) and therefore, like iron sharpening iron (Pvbs 27:17) we ought to delight in stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Hebs 10:24) with vigorous discussion about how to apply God’s unchanging principles (Col 3:16). Good Christian fellowship does not mean an absence of differences between people, but rather working through those differences in the right way. Therefore we need to learn how to deal kindly and gently with one another, being patient when wronged, and with gentleness correcting those in opposition because it is always God who brings about repentance (2 Tim 2:23ff).

Thirdly, if we are correct in our understanding that “weird people” are well, weird just because there is a spiritual problem (that of autonomy; that life must revolve around them and their feelings) then if they will not change, then perhaps the most gracious thing we can say to them is “good-bye.” Now, this may sound unkind or even cruel, and I never want to give up on anyone, but let us be realistic, we can only have a ministry in someone’s life to the degree that they will allow it. Every relationship has a cost involved, and some relationships, even though we might well LIKE the person, cost too much because it always has to be on their terms. God has a lot to say about people who will not change, cannot be corrected, refuse discipline and insist on living life according to their rules rather than His; He calls them “fools.”

And if you rebuke a fool, he will hate you. And because the fool is not constrained by God’s law, he will do whatever he can to destroy you if you make him angry enough. Rather than suffering fools, the best idea I have been able to come up with is to create an environment where they do not feel “comfortable” and hope they move on. This may sound harsh and unsympathetic but really, what other choice do we have?

Now granted, Jesus had some harsh words for those willing to hurl the epithet “fool” at others in the covenant community (cf. Matt 5:22ff) and I take Him very seriously here. Therefore we should never identify a specific person as a “fool;” just let people deal themselves in, or out of our lives as they see fit. I think there are several benefits to this approach; first, this is non-judgmental and allows for legitimate differences of opinion, values, etc., within the broader bonds of Christian fellowship. I know that I cannot minister to EVERY kind of person, so if we don’t “scratch” where a person itches, then Lord bless him, maybe the church down the street can. All I can do is what I believe God has called me to do; preach the word and then show those interested how it applies to their own lives.

Secondly in line with the above, by not creating an environment where we try to please everyone, we allow those that God has called to fellowship and serve together to focus on their ministry. We are not side-tracked by trying to keep everyone happy because coming in we are upfront about what we believe and what constitutes appropriate behavior. For example, in our local home-schooling community our church is not terribly highly regarded by certain women because we vote by covenant heads of household, not as individuals. These women find this practice demeaning and insulting and though they like a lot of other things about our church, they find this practice unacceptable. Now we could change our voting practices to accommodate these women, after all, 99.9% of evangelical churches assume as a given that voting ought to be by individuals, rather than by households, but to do so would be implicitly to give up something we think is mandated by Scripture. None of these women (and the husbands are ominously silent on this issue) want to dialogue with our books, pamphlets or essays written to support our position; they just think we are “weird.”

And you know; that’s OK! If they don’t want to be taught what we have to teach, then Lord bless them, let them go on their way and do whatever they think is right; eventually God will judge us both; for what we believe and almost as importantly, for how we believed it. So in my opinion, they can do things their way, and we will do things God’s way J (Did I really just write that? Shame on me, ruining a perfectly serious paragraph with a silly comment that has no other purpose than a cheap laugh)

Finally, let us all take a long, careful look at our own hearts. Do others think we are “weird” because we are holding to the truth, or is it because secretly, we want to be autonomous? It is one thing to be hated or ridiculed by the world because we insist on holding to Biblical truth despite modern cultural norms; but it is something altogether different to be isolated and alienated because at heart, we just want our own way all the time.

A good way to check out your real heart condition is to take a careful and honest look at how you handle criticism and correction. Can you be corrected by others? Are you always defensive, insisting that you have to be right all the time? Do you burn through relationships, churches, jobs, etc., the way a fire burns through logs? If so, then maybe you qualify as being “weird.”

And in the end, is it worth it? After all, on the great and glorious day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord, you will be held accountable for every word you spoke and every deed you did. There, faced with the ultimate standard of “normalcy” the Lord Jesus Himself, all your justifications, rationalizations and excuses will count for nothing. Isn’t it a whole lot easier to learn how to repent NOW, then it will be to face the embarrassment of facing Him, then?

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business
2. Studies on the Nature of Biblical Authority
3. Iron Sharpening Iron: Romantic Theology