How would you say that you have come to hold the doctrinal and theological positions that you currently hold? Is it something that you have simply received from your pastor’s teaching; something you have grown up believing as a Christian; something that you have come to based upon your own personal study; or maybe (and probably) a combination of multiple variables? This question isn’t really directed at academics (but you can play too); instead I am wondering about just regular thoughtful Christian folk. The reason I am asking this is because it dawned on me that so many people in the church (and I really mean, the leadership; like pastors) have simply received whatever doctrinal position they may have inherited from whatever denominational perspective they were brought into the faith through; and have runwith it. This came home for me today as I was contemplating the teaching ministry of Calvary Chapel, and the teaching ministry of its founder, Chuck Smith. He & company vehemently holds to premillennial, pre-tribulational classic Dispensationalism. He has taught and interpreted the Bible for well over half a century through this lens. But as I watching him today (with his side-kick, Don Stewart) on HisChannel, it hit me that more than likely Chuck Smith has just taken his theological trajectory and run with it in an “un-critical” way. My hunch is that he has never considered any other way of interpreting Scripture other than the one he has inherited and received from his teachers (in the Foursquare denomination). I don’t lift Smith up to pick on him, but to use him as an example of what is probably the normal phenomenon in most of the Evangelical world relative to her pastoral leadership.
I thought of this because I have had some pretty dramatic paradigm shifts over the last ten years (I am going through some at the moment, even); theologically. I grew up with views very similar to Chuck Smith’s (although not on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), and yet there has been upheaval in my own development. I don’t think this makes me better than Chuck Smith (it might make me worse), but there is something different from my path and that of someone like Smith. And so this post is simply probing what you think the difference is. Why do some people hold and run with what they have been taught from early on (without a second thought), and others change and develop differently than this?
I think that there is some insecurity and fear involved with some of this. And thus it is easier and safer just to hold onto what is comfortable instead of reading and studying outside the boundaries that one has set for themselves theologically. The problem with this approach is that it can lead to sectarianism wherein what should be secondary issues end up being on the level of Articles of the Faith. If I were to disagree with Chuck Smith on dispensationalism (which I genuinely do); my Christianity could be suspect to him and those who follow him (those who call him their Pastor). I don’t say this theoretically; no, I know this to be true because I have observed this kind of sectarianism within the Calvary Chapel movement.
Anyway I digressed a little. What do you think about the questions I asked in this post?
Pingback: How did you come to believe . . . Β« The Evangelical Calvinist | pastorleaders.com
I might suggest, rather than just “[taking] his theological trajectory and [running] with it in an βun-criticalβ way,” that there’s another model. And you can even see it in the pope! Theologians who go through an exploratory phase, even a very radical one, in their youth, and “return” to a sectarian position that conserves something of their origins (even if it’s nuanced by the exploration). Kind of a classic exitus-reditus strategy, “sowing your wild oats” before settling back down into what’s expected. Heck, my father did it.
But I think there is something “uncritical” about it, in the same way most comparative theology is uncritical: we explore the other options before returning (provided we return) to the one that’s ours. To that extent, un-self-critical, because it isn’t about following “our” internal logic out and questioning the way it works. One simply becomes what one is. The strains of self-critical tradition tend to be the reforming ones, the ones that can’t come to rest in their own “home” until it has been set “right”.
I think I might have gone the former route — and possibly still will, eventually, because we all long for the familiar — if I hadn’t gone for my doctorate. Much depends on where the path ends. But I’m set in a place, because of my studies, where the tradition of my childhood is like a house with good bones, but one that needs repair. And I’ve gone left rather than right in looking for ways to repair it.
@Matt,
Your suggestion may well be the case in some instances, but I think in Smith’s case this is not the case. While I appreciate Chuck, the tradition he inhabits is quite anti-intellectual (in some ways); and thus the sowing your wild oats mode isn’t really something that takes place in this particular sub-culture (Smith is in his 80’s).
I like your second paragraph.
I am similar to you, probably, Matt; per your last paragraph. But alas, I am Evangelical; and to be honest, Evangelicals really don’t have a historical tradition to come to (at least not one that I want to come back to). I Evangelical Calvinism, and my Reformed perspective provides a good place for me to dwell; theologically. But I am afraid there really isn’t much place for it in my own Evangelical heritage (for most folks). They would rather just argue about that old Calvinist-Arminian debate (if they even know what that is anymore).
Bobby,
This is a great question, and the answer for me isn’t limited to your examples. I’m sure I’ve retained many things just because I was taught them from the beginning, and those things are held by the different churches and circles to which I’ve belonged. Many things were concluded by personal study. I’ve changed many of my views simlply because I found problem(s) with them and was forced to find a new answer.
But one of the most difficult but necessary ways I’ve come to change my views on things over the years is through experience of the logical, practical result of doctrines. False doctrines produce bad fruit. People experience unfortunate things in their lives due to the practice of false teachings or misinterpretation of the bible. Over the years I’ve developed a discernment of cause and effect with reference to beliefs. I “follow the money” as it were. Often, people are injured and the theologians responsible for inventing (or propagating) the beliefs take no responsibility for the result of their beliefs, and thus blame the people hurt. “It must be their fault because what we believe is biblical.”
@Steve,
That is a great observation; some label this approach as being a “theologian of crisis.” That’s really how I operate most often as well.
Bobby,
Good observations (i.e. the CC movement) and great questions for all of us to ask.
Let me add another angle on what has (possibly) solidified Chuck Smith to his positions. I would suggest that there are two other things in play: #1 – the Jesus Movement experience/era that “validated” (for many) his theology, particularly his pneumatology and eschatology. And, #2, the long-term pastoral perspective that, in essence, holds a man accountable to continue in the same vein of theology so as not to throttle the congregation he serves (a local, non-denomination).
To elaborate #1: Any time there’s a specific work of God in a particular people, generation, or area, whatever “group” God is uniquely working through will – quite naturally, though maybe not correctly – assume that they are “right”. The work God’s doing in/thru/around them “validates” thier theological positions and ministry approach. Of course, that assumption could be chalked full of problems (consider a vast amount of what happens in hyper-charismatic movements), so I’m not arguing for it or from it! π But, during the 80’s and 90’s (and maybe beyond?)this was pretty much the lens that CC viewed itself through.
The men who came to faith in Christ in those early years of CC and the Jesus Movement – and who spent several years with CS and then planted their own churches – would, quite naturally, assume that what they’ve learned and what’s been passed on to them is correct. After all, they were the products of it! So, in my opinion, it’s quite understandable how their theology and theopraxy was shaped in concrete, because it’s so intimately tied to their personal experience! Again, not arguing for this, just adding a little theory ;-). It also explains why there was (for so many years, though it’s changing now) such a low view of seminary. Why waste all that time and money when you’ve already got the answers and they’re being “validated” by God?
Obviously, this thinking is chalked full of problems. The great neglect of church history and understanding of theological development (i.e. the Church before 1967) has born the fruit of uneccessary sectarianism, as you rightly pointed out. However, I’m glad to report that this attitude is changing, at least amongst some of the present and coming generation of CC pastors and leaders! π
To elaborate #2: There’s a unique relationship that develops amongst the church and its pastor, especially the “teaching pastor.” There’s an element of trust that develops (from the congregation), as well as a love and care for the long term spiritual well-being of the congregation (from the pastor). As time goes on and that trust and love grow, theological “shifts” become more difficult to make/take. The stakes become larger, if you will. A good pastor realizes that changes in his thought/understanding (as important and needed as they may be), will have a major impact on the life and spiritual well-being of the congregation he serves.
Now, I’m not espousing this as good for the pastor or church, but I think it’s something that comes into play quite seriously in the Evangelical world. I mean, if you had taught a certain eschatology for 50+ years, affecting thousands upon thousands of people (and their view of God), what are the chances that you’re going to change your view in the late stages of your life/ministry? There’s a human/relational element that plays hard against any major scholastic/theological shift. No doubt, it’s a problem. At this point, I’m offering no solutions – just observations! π
Sorry for the long response Bobby, I’ve been thinking about this all day long! And sorry that I didn’t actually answer your questions either. Maybe I’ll come back and do that. Or, maybe you could just stop watching His Channel and switch over to some Johnny Mac – I really like it when you post on him! π
Daniel,
Thank you for the reply!
I think you insights on CC are right on. In fact this is definitely a part of the self-identity of the CC movement. I once or twice heard Broderson compare what happened with Chuck and CC with what Luther spawned with the Prot Reformation (and then of course there is the Moses model). I understand the stability and the responsibility that a pastor has to his flock, and I see how Chuck’s position and continued position fits into that mode of pastoral care and trust. But I don’t gather that this is the primary reason Chuck has stayed his doctrinal course; I would imagine it is because he passionately believes it.
I think it would be loving and leading (like in leadership) to be willing to be self-critical, and work through various positions in front of the people. This way Chuck could show people how to think Christianly for themselves, and also divest himself of being somebody who holds the “keys” so to speak (interpretively i.e. Chuck tapes etc π ).
I get the relational and coming of age thing with the most prominent CC pastors (esp. in Southern California), and this definitely isn’t a phenomenon limited to CC in the Evangelical world. But of course my constant concern is the kind of sectarianism that this body life can (and has) lead to. This isn’t just an issue for CC (but it is a rather big one for CC); I think it is an issue for Evangelicalism in general.
Thank you for the feedback, pastor Daniel; great points! I’ll keep watching HisChannel just to keep my finger on the pulse there. I am somewhat tired of Johnny Mac; I used to talk about his theology quite frequently (prior to us meeting) π .
Hi Bobby! Sorry about the late hit. I’ve been off line a while. I believe for a lot of people Daniel is right. I just googled “Dance with the one who brung ya”. I thought it was from an old western. I didn’t know there was a Petra song. But especially for we who came to the Lord as adolescents or adults, being unchurched, I believe we bond with the system under which we were saved.
That said, there is a lot of pragmatism in my fidelity – namely my infidelity (regarding serving Christ alone). Maybe if the Gospel given me had had some leaven of works salted in, I would be a better Christian today*. As it is, I have to count on a free grace through faith alone gospel, or I’m sunk. That, with the Trinitarian anchor is the bottom line of my theology. Escatology, Ecclesiology, and let’s see… other stuff, I can work on, and bend. It’s weird, GES types (for example) are bent on “converting” others to their “Gospel”, and others refuse to convert, because that aint the one that brung ’em. It’s also weird that they’re so all fired sure that the other Christians need converted.
*As a footnote, I’m just really struggling, covetting your prayers. At nearly 52, I’m looking at 35 to 50 yrs to go, and I’m not getting any better. :O)
Duane,
We all are growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus together; until we all attain to the unity of the faith of Christ. I’ll pray for you, brother!