Matt Jamison says...
"The idea that "I don't follow any creed; I follow the Bible" is fundamentally dishonest. The whole "non-denominational" movement is built on this conceit. If you ever want to try this out, ask a nondenom church to baptize your infant. When they refuse, ask them to show you the verse where infant baptism is prohibited.
I don't mean to argue infant baptism for the umpteenth time on WT [the Wittenberg Trail, a community for people interested in Lutheranism], my point is to say that such churches do, in fact, have doctrinal positions that they hold to, that are not literally found in scripture, but are based on reasoning from the scriptures. Lutherans have codified these positions into something called the "Book of Concord" that we can point to and say "this is what it means to be a Lutheran" in terms of doctrine. Nondenoms most certainly do have doctrinal positions, but often they are confused and contradictory, because they like to pretend to have no doctrine but what is literally in scripture.
My church has a Mandarin service, and I know several Chinese Lutherans very well. They have a terrible time overcoming the doctrinal confusion sown by missionaries who told them that doctrine was no big deal, and all they needed was the Bible. So now, having the Bible, they earnestly want to be Christians but can get no clear answers about what Christians believe, teach and confess because so many in foreign missions think that doctrine is divisive or man-made or unnecessary.
In fact, these Chinese Lutherans came to join our confessional lutheran church because of their exasperation with a pastor who continually told them that baptism and the Lord's Supper was no big deal. Having read their Bibles, they knew better, and wanted the solid, grown-up food of pure doctrine rather than the confusion that prevails among evangelical missionaries.
I don't mean to argue infant baptism for the umpteenth time on WT [the Wittenberg Trail, a community for people interested in Lutheranism], my point is to say that such churches do, in fact, have doctrinal positions that they hold to, that are not literally found in scripture, but are based on reasoning from the scriptures. Lutherans have codified these positions into something called the "Book of Concord" that we can point to and say "this is what it means to be a Lutheran" in terms of doctrine. Nondenoms most certainly do have doctrinal positions, but often they are confused and contradictory, because they like to pretend to have no doctrine but what is literally in scripture.
My church has a Mandarin service, and I know several Chinese Lutherans very well. They have a terrible time overcoming the doctrinal confusion sown by missionaries who told them that doctrine was no big deal, and all they needed was the Bible. So now, having the Bible, they earnestly want to be Christians but can get no clear answers about what Christians believe, teach and confess because so many in foreign missions think that doctrine is divisive or man-made or unnecessary.
In fact, these Chinese Lutherans came to join our confessional lutheran church because of their exasperation with a pastor who continually told them that baptism and the Lord's Supper was no big deal. Having read their Bibles, they knew better, and wanted the solid, grown-up food of pure doctrine rather than the confusion that prevails among evangelical missionaries.
[He continues a while later with an illustration about what may happen in a cross-cultural setting to make life without creeds very confusing.]
Let's say that my Baptist friend and I (a Lutheran) agree that we must attempt to reach people in China with the Gospel so we decide to form an organization to distribute Bibles in China. I believe that infants should be baptized, my Baptist friend thinks they should not. But we decide that that is a point of doctrine that we should not discuss because of the importance of getting Bibles into the hands of the Chinese, and the benefits of working together across denominational lines. We decide, in this instance, that "doctrine doesn't matter" and we get busy distributing Bibles.
So lets say our mission is a success, and a new Chinese believer comes to us to ask "should I baptize my child?" I answer "I believe that it is critically important that you baptize your child." My Baptist friend says "you must not baptize your child until he reaches an age of accountability where he can confess his faith and ask to be baptized."
Naturally, our new Chinese believer is confused. He wonders if we (either of us) know what we're talking about. We insist that this point of doctrine is not important and only the Gospel matters, but having believed the Gospel, our new convert can't get straight answers about what Christians believe. The new Christian church divides along lines similar to the division that has long existed in Western Christianity over this question, and it appears that division now exists where it hasn't before.
In a nutshell, that is what I think has happened, historically, with Chinese missions. I think the answer is not to whitewash or bury doctrinal disagreements that exist in the church. The answer is to be upfront and clear about our doctrinal positions to begin with.
So lets say our mission is a success, and a new Chinese believer comes to us to ask "should I baptize my child?" I answer "I believe that it is critically important that you baptize your child." My Baptist friend says "you must not baptize your child until he reaches an age of accountability where he can confess his faith and ask to be baptized."
Naturally, our new Chinese believer is confused. He wonders if we (either of us) know what we're talking about. We insist that this point of doctrine is not important and only the Gospel matters, but having believed the Gospel, our new convert can't get straight answers about what Christians believe. The new Christian church divides along lines similar to the division that has long existed in Western Christianity over this question, and it appears that division now exists where it hasn't before.
In a nutshell, that is what I think has happened, historically, with Chinese missions. I think the answer is not to whitewash or bury doctrinal disagreements that exist in the church. The answer is to be upfront and clear about our doctrinal positions to begin with.
YARR, CAP'N AGIN HERE. SEEMS THIS WOULD BE THE WAY IT WOULD WORK NOT ONLY IN CHINA BUT EVERWHAR. WHY DOESN' WE AGREE TO AGREE, 'STEAD O' AGREEIN' TO DISAGREE?
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com
3 comments:
LOL! Point well taken, Cap'n!
Interesting point. I originally considered myself nondenominational. I'm not quite sure now. It would be nice to say I'm just a Christian, but since there's so much fluffiness about what that actually means nowadays, I can't. Instead, I'll have to make do with showing my true Christianity by following Christ. That's really the only test.
But I'm one for creeds, definitely. And while I have some issues with many (most) of them, I think many (most) of them get the big things right.
One of the turning points in my own journey (from DallasTS-style Bible Church to Roman Catholic) was when I realized that "(by) Bible alone"/sola Scriptura was not Scriptural, and that if I wanted to follow the Bible alone, I had no Scriptural guide for what should actually be considered Scripture.
Next came the troubling examples of how (NT) Scripture interprets (OT) Scripture. From then on, it was a steady progression towards swimming the Tiber, driven by epistemology and history.
Post a Comment