Having covered the essentials of what the Bible says about basic dogma, we come to the final assignment in A 'Reader's Digest' Approach to Theology,1 to evaluate what we profess (in our statements of belief) by what we have learned. Using what we have studied, we will assess our church's doctrinal statement in four areas.
When evaluating any doctrinal statement, we must look for agreement with what we believe as well as significant points of difference. Because a doctrinal statement is intended as a summary of belief, both for those already part of the group and for those who want information about the group, it cannot be comprehensive in what it asserts without becoming unwieldy and less useful. Therefore, such a statement is likely to be representative rather than exhaustive. That said, we should neither expect nor require the same degree of detail as our Reader's Digest Approach put forth. A typical statement of belief seeks a balance between too much information and too little information, between satisfying a person's casual query and bombarding him with more details than he cares to consider or by being so vague as to make him wonder if the group has any clear convictions at all. To that end, we will look at the statements by our particular group(s) and compare them to the statements from our study.
In most cases, those statements should be similar. Any "significant points of divergence," we will need to examine more carefully to determine if they are differences that might affect our ability to fellowship with that group. For example, when I was serving as interim minister at St. John's Reformed Church, I could not (according to my understanding of what the Bible teaches) follow the practice there of baptizing infants, so another minister came for those events. Nevertheless, I did not regard that difference as an impediment to my broader ministry there. By the same token, I would not have been able to continue there if the church had adopted the United Church of Christ position on affirming and accepting homosexuals, a position the church actually rejected and that led to the congregation's withdrawal from that denomination.
As I said, most differences will be in the degree of detail a statement presents. The challenge will be identifying differences that matter. A common dictum may apply here (attributed to the pseudonymous Rupertus Meldenius (= Richard Baxter, 1615-1691): In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas).
For the very Bibliography and Endnotes, see the pdf here.
For the other chapters in "A 'Reader's Digest' Approach to Theology" see the contents here.
- Exegetical: How accurate is the church's statement?
- Examine each of the stated beliefs, determining which ones have the support of scripture—that is, do the biblical passages listed actually teach the doctrine in question? If not, are the verses wrong for that particular point—in which case, can you suggest better ones—or is the point itself deficient in some way—perhaps more specific than the biblical evidence will allow?
- Theological: What are the doctrines essential to true evangelical Christianity? (You do not have to limit your answer to items in the doctrinal statement.)
- Be prepared to justify your response, to give the reason you consider one point of belief more important than another. Consider, for example, to what extent it is necessary to hold these doctrines in order to be saved and, if they are not necessary for salvation, what makes them in some way essential.
- Practical: How should these essentials affect the way you relate to those who hold different beliefs?
- Consider, for example, the role of such doctrines in selecting a local church, engaging in joint projects with other congregations, and fellowshipping with other Christians.
- Structural: How balanced is the statement as a whole in its treatment of the various points of doctrine?
The next class will be primarily discussion about these questions, although I may suggest a few verses to stir the pot.2 Having covered the major doctrines of Christianity, I want us to evaluate what we profess. Does what we state in writing match what is written in scripture? What aspects of our belief system demand our adherence, perhaps to the point of separation from those who believe differently, and what aspects of our belief system are negotiable or allow us to compromise. What is worth arguing? What is worth insisting? What is worth dividing over? And what is not?3
- Does each section have about the same amount of biblical support, is the number of verses for some points significantly greater or lesser than for others? Are these all major theological issues? Are some of them more properly church practice (i.e., polity)?
When evaluating any doctrinal statement, we must look for agreement with what we believe as well as significant points of difference. Because a doctrinal statement is intended as a summary of belief, both for those already part of the group and for those who want information about the group, it cannot be comprehensive in what it asserts without becoming unwieldy and less useful. Therefore, such a statement is likely to be representative rather than exhaustive. That said, we should neither expect nor require the same degree of detail as our Reader's Digest Approach put forth. A typical statement of belief seeks a balance between too much information and too little information, between satisfying a person's casual query and bombarding him with more details than he cares to consider or by being so vague as to make him wonder if the group has any clear convictions at all. To that end, we will look at the statements by our particular group(s) and compare them to the statements from our study.
In most cases, those statements should be similar. Any "significant points of divergence," we will need to examine more carefully to determine if they are differences that might affect our ability to fellowship with that group. For example, when I was serving as interim minister at St. John's Reformed Church, I could not (according to my understanding of what the Bible teaches) follow the practice there of baptizing infants, so another minister came for those events. Nevertheless, I did not regard that difference as an impediment to my broader ministry there. By the same token, I would not have been able to continue there if the church had adopted the United Church of Christ position on affirming and accepting homosexuals, a position the church actually rejected and that led to the congregation's withdrawal from that denomination.
As I said, most differences will be in the degree of detail a statement presents. The challenge will be identifying differences that matter. A common dictum may apply here (attributed to the pseudonymous Rupertus Meldenius (= Richard Baxter, 1615-1691): In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas).
In necessary things—unity;
In doubtful things—liberty;
In all things -charity.
For the very Bibliography and Endnotes, see the pdf here.
For the other chapters in "A 'Reader's Digest' Approach to Theology" see the contents here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Relevant and civil comments are welcome. Whether there will be any response depends on whether Dr. Manuel notices them and has the time and inclination to respond or, if not, whether I feel competent to do so.
Jim Skaggs