Banner
Our Educated Fog-Mongers PDF Print E-mail
Theology - Roman or Catholic?
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 10 May 2006 06:42

A week or so ago, I posted something on laymen and Scripture here. I invited Tim Enloe to respond, which he has now done here.

To this, let me add just a few additional comments. I agree with the drift of Tim's comments, and share his loathing of egalitarianism. And I agree that the fact that I simply "see" things does not mean that the engineering of the eyeball is simple. That said, I would just add one caution, because the ecclesiastical mess that surrounds us on every hand is complicated enormously by the following problem, one that our ecclesiastical leaders have contributed to more than the laymen have (in my view). I am not assuming that Tim would differ with any of this, but I do think it is necessary to make a point of saying it.

In our current set up, the people most likely to be able to follow the nuances that I (and Tim) would want to offer when it comes to hermeneutics are the same people who are least likely to be able to tell the difference between men and women. And the people who are most likely to read Romans 1 as a flat out condemnation of homosexual behavior (which it is) are also the most likely to think that the New Jerusalem will come down out of the sky like it was a space shuttle. Huh. Now what?

I therefore want to argue that Christians ministers are responsible to lead the people of God when it comes to the great and pressing issues of the day, to be true men of Issachar. For example, I mean issues like the fact that homosexual behavior is a sin, which has been clear to the universal Church, east and west, north and south, last century and the ones before that, to most bishops and all stable hands. This important datum is being currently blurred by professional and highly educated fog-mongers, but that does not alter our duties in the slightest. These faithful conservative ministers, with their faithfulness in leadership established on those issues which every Christian (with eyes in his head) can see, will have then earned the trust of Christians generally when it comes time to lead them in some challenging areas. That way, the hermeneutical spiral need not be circling the drain.

The problem is that subtle minds want to be subtle all the time, and everything ain't subtle. The problem is that simple minds want to be simple all the time, and everything ain't simple. Scriptural leadership means being simple where God is simple (what part of "thou shalt not" went over your head?) and subtle when God is subtle (some things in Paul's letters are hard to understand, and which ignorant and unstable people twist to their own destruction).

After all, there are times when the people heap up false teachers for themselves. And there are times when the elites get themselves all balled up.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 06:42
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Frank Turk  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:30 am
Doug --

I find it interesting here that you take the argument Tim makes and apply it in a way which I honestly wish he would. I'll say publicly here what I have hinted at over at his blog: I don't think it's his theory that's messed up: I think he applies it to the wrong folks.

Are baptists lily white? Oh please. Who would say such a thing? But in that, baptists -- in spite of our many, obvious flaws (like a deep, passionate love of sarcasm and the inability to let it go) -- are not the ones who think that the Gospel has no use today. Rick Warren notwithstanding.

And when the New Jerusalem lands, I'll thank you to remember that it will land like a hellicopter and not a space shuttle. (Hez 44:13)

Frank Turk  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:31 am
Excuse me -- may I call you Doug?

:-)

Matthew Hoover  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:16 am
Hi Frank,



I share a lot of Tim's concerns, so I'd like to answer that, while trying not to sound hysterical.



The question I wish Baptists would honestly ask themselves is: "As the theological mainstream in the conservative American Church today, are any of the doctrinal commitments that we hold producing the fruit of our degenerating churches and culture? Do we bear any responsibility for what's going on?" I believe the answer is "Yes".
The Clinging Vine  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:54 am
"The question I wish Baptists would honestly ask themselves is: 'As the theological mainstream in the conservative American Church today, are any of the doctrinal commitments that we hold producing the fruit of our degenerating churches and culture? Do we bear any responsibility for what's going on?'"



You mean, Matthew, unlike those bastions of orthodox doctrine and practical purity, the PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA, and UMC...paedobaptist denominations each and every one?



Anne
The Clinging Vine  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:56 am
Pastor Wilson wrote a dandy post here, full of pithy points. It'd be a pity to have this deteriorate into just another "Let's blame the Baptists for everything up to and including the unwanted litter of kittens under the porch" thread.



Anne
Frank Turk  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:12 am
Matthew:

I don't think there's anything wrong with the question you asked, or the answer you gave -- as far as either one of them goes. I would agree with you. The problem (to pull a Tim on you here) is what you are going to define as "doctrine".

For example, it is theologically-disgusting what we find in the range of baptismal practices in SBC churches. When the range spans from "you can get baptized when you feel like you want to" to "you can get baptized as often as you want to", we're not actually baptists anymore on that issue, are we? We're clowns. We have done exactly what Tim is complaining about -- which is, we have toddled off the "local church autonomy" map and into the "radical individualistic autonomy" trash can.

-more-

Frank Turk  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:21 am
-cont-

However, my concern with Tim's complaints is not that these people exist, or that they are not wrong: it is that Tim tries to heap these unfortunate acts onto the heads of people who are doing no such thing -- but have other concerns about the kinds of inclusivism and kinds of epistemological equipment Tim wants to employ and deploy.

Honest: I like Tim. He's smart. I'll bet he's a very good husband. If he wasn't angry at me all the time, I'll bet he'd be good for a laugh every so often, and it's not very often I run into someone who can make me laugh in Latin. I'd rather laugh with him than at him.

But when he wants to count Eric Svendsen or James White (or me, who is not a pastor) in the same company as, I dunno, any average pseudo megachurch with 3000+ members which has never considered the implications of baptism and thus uses it more like a fireplug than a font, I'm going to speak up.

The Clinging Vine  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:14 am
ISTM the "problem" lies beyond the mode of baptism, since there are doctrinally deficient and dismal credobaptist churches, doctrinally sound and encouraging credobaptist churches, doctrinally deficient and dismal paedobaptist churches, and doctrinally sound and encouraging paedobaptist churches.



If a particular church's mode of baptism cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the soundness of that church, then for the life of me I fail to see why so many tacitly insist it is The Be-All and End-All.



Anne
lewsta  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:33 pm
I've been working hard trying to figure out what all the fussin over baptism is. Seems to me the Word is pretty plain on the matter. It says "do it". And little more. We can look between the lines and find some instances where it was done, and glean a few details---mostly based on assumptions. So why have men killed each other over the details--the details plainly lacking in the written account of the early church? Seems to me if it was so doggone important who does it to whom, when, how, how deep, at what age, where, and what credentials must be held (or not) by the dunker, what tests passed by the dunkee (or even whether dunking is the deal anyway), then we'd HAVE the details spelled out for us, wouldn't we? If the scripture contains ALL that pertains to live and godliness, and the niggling details really DID pertain to life and godliness, would it not be all be spelt, with NO room for speculation? But that ain't the case. Which leads ME (what do I know anyway) to think maybe the details DONT matter all that much. SO---why not leave them to the discretion of the folks doing it....and lets get on with the issues that REALLY matter. And stop putting THOSE PEOPLE who do it THAT WAY out of our own close little circles.......perhaps a quote of some high-powered marketing wisdom from the world would apply here---"just DO it".
Kevin D. Johnson  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:15 pm

I'm officially on a blogging vacation, but before I go, Lewsta's comments of course betray the Baptist hermeneutic at work and the difference between that and more stayed Catholic thinking is the stuff that makes or breaks civilizations. That's why it's important and that's why Tim and I and others consistently hammer these points home.


Lewsta wants to say "just do it", and that's exactly what the first anabaptists did in Zurich's square five hundred years ago when they re-baptized men to exercise civil disobedience against a council that most assuredly felt that infants should be baptized and that there still was something biblical about the current order of Christian society and government in place even when the hypocritical anabaptists couldn't find evidence for it in the text of Scripture (though somehow the katabaptists missed the fact that nowhere in Scripture does the Bible teach that we can use the sacraments as acts of civil disobedience).


Some of us would disagree that such things are of so little importance merely because they aren't explicitly mentioned in Scripture (never mind that this again brings up discussions of just what is plain...why can't I plainly see infant baptism for example in the Great Commission contra the assertions of Baptists who have presuppositional blinders on so thick they could double as blast doors on Stargate SG-1?).

Christopher Witmer  Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:33 pm
I must confess huge gaps in my knowledge of the historical record here, but is it really appropriate to bring anabaptists into the discussion at this point? It is my understanding that although there are some points of superficial similarity, the relations between the anabaptists of continental Europe and their descendants, and the signers of the 1677/89 London Confession and their descendants are rather tenuous at best. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
The Clinging Vine  Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:50 am
Kevine, did you mean "staid" Catholic thinking?



Hope you have a lovely, long vacation, BTW. Very lovely. Very long.



No, you're right, Christopher, though inept "historians" with points to prove tend to insist otherwise.



Anne
The Clinging Vine  Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:50 am
Oops! I meant "Kevin" of course. Don't know from whence the errant "e" came.
Frank Turk  Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:30 am
I ... I ... I can't believe it!

I agree with Kevin Johnson! For two whole paragraphs, no less!

If he hadn't started that third paragraph, I might have had to ask for ID or something ...