Online interaction is what it is; we all know what it is by now. Christian social media is an interesting place, eh. Just recently I had a reminder (on Twitter) what it is like to run into a brother (apparently) who harbors some serious insecurities based upon his lack of knowledge (i.e. lack of study), and ego issues. In this particular instance I commented on someone else’s thread (I don’t even think I really “know” them), in regard to a question orbiting around a so-called ordo salutis. I challenged this person, a bit, because their position sounded rather semi-Pelagian. So, I poked back on what this Tweeter was asserting, and this guy, the one in question, didn’t understand what I had to say, per se; he just knew he didn’t like it. I attempted to offer a bit further explanation in regard to his push-back, and he really didn’t like my gist. He believed my response was too intelligentsia, to the point that I was outstripping what Scripture allows for. In other words, he believed that my responses were rubbish simply because I used concepts and language that he has no familiarity with; thus eo ipso I must be an arrogant priss who simply appeals to jargony language in order to ‘fudge’ my way around offering concrete and ‘biblical’ responses. And yet my responses represent a start towards very concrete answers; the problem: the person has to have some level of theological acumen in order to appreciate said responses. Since this fella doesn’t have this acumen (which is different from not having the smarts, per se), his come-back to me was that I must be an arrogant full-of-myself egg-head who has abandoned the simplicity of the Gospel long ago. This is what I want to address, briefly, in this post.

I tire of this sort of arrogance. I am referring to the arrogance of my interlocutor. His testosterone levels surely have gotten in the way of his ability to engage in any sort of meaningful way. He wanted me to operate in a mode he deemed acceptable, to think in a way commensurate with his lights rather than mine. He wasn’t interested in ‘learning’ anything, instead he simply wanted me to submit to his way of thinking; which appeared to be to denigrate thinking theologically. He wanted me to only speak from biblical categories, as if theological grammar and categories are non-correlative with thinking ‘biblically.’ He wanted me to adopt his solo Scriptura mode of thinking and speaking, when I repudiate that, and am only comfortable in thinking in terms of sola Scriptura. In other words, I understand Scripture to be an occasional volume, as far as its composition, which trades on theological assumptions that lie just underneath what it overtly expresses in its various types, genres, and forms. This means that in order to actually understand Scripture we must dig deep, toil even, and seek to understand how it can make claims about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being distinct persons, but one and the same God. In order to understand Scripture we must ask how Scripture can speak of Jesus being fully human and fully God. And if we must dig into Scripture this way, in order to understand its primary subject matter, i.e. Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 5.39) and the triune God He reveals, then this means that all of Scripture, if it’s going to be Holy, finds its orientation and meaning from this sort of deep theological leveling. Once we can accept this we have now joined the church catholic, and the communio sanctorum (‘communion of the saints’); we have come to the point of recognition that Scripture, as TF Torrance says, has a ‘depth dimension,’ that outwith understanding this the would-be biblical exegete will be hopelessly mired in attempting to make sense of Scripture without really understanding Scripture’s real ground and context in Jesus Christ.

My Twitter interlocutor has never, apparently, been introduced to the world of theological interpretation of Scripture (TIS), or theological exegesis. Thus for him, his reading of Scripture remains on mute; and he attempts to ostensibly order Scripture by his lights rather than the light of God in Jesus Christ. And so when he comes across someone like me he is confronted by, what to him must feel like an invasion by some alien life form who thinks it is superior to him. And so he almost immediately charged me with being arrogant because I did not fit into his expectation of what a serious Christian exegete ought to be. But then I ask myself: who is the one being arrogant here? I spent seven years of my life (and $60K) being formally trained on how to interpret Scripture, read the Bible in its original languages, learn how to think with the past (dead guys and gals), and learn the art of thinking constructively, along with the theologians, about who God is as revealed in Jesus Christ as attested to in Holy Scripture. But I’m the arrogant one because I have spent my time doing that homework, and my interlocutor hasn’t. None of this is about being ‘smarter’ than anyone else; it is simply about how God distributes various gifts within the body of Christ for its edification. The irony is, is that because there are so many egos out there in the church, particularly among men, that people like me, with all my training and praying, are cast aside as know it all theological geeks with no meaningful space for providing the church with anything of temporal and eternal value. I have had this experience over and again by pastors I have come into contact with, at the MANY churches we have attempted to be part of, once they realize I have some level of theological acumen. For some reason they believe my goal is to move in and take over their kingdom (which is a laughable concept — especially if you knew me in person — I’m actually a really nice non-threatening person, although I do have lots of passion for the Gospel).

Anyway, all I can say to all of this is: look at the state of the Free low-evangelical churches in America. This is the ecclesial context I grew up in, and where I have attempted to stay for all these years. Maybe if these types of churches allowed space for us theological-geek types to be more present for the discipling process, it might have a lot more depth and not produce so many atheists and Nones; it might not be so impotent, and quit capitulating to the culture as it does. I guess we will never really know. My interlocutor, at least his attitude, is a lost cause; insofar as his attitude is pervasive in the evangelical churches, they too are lost causes.