January, 2006:

The church my Father attends and preaches at holds a discussion period – an adult Sunday School if you will – immediately following the sermon. I wish more churches did this since I always find it is a great time to both find out what other people are thinking and to share a bit about what you think. A older, veteran missionary couple, people I have a great respect for, sat in on the service and the following discussion period today.

He posed the question “Why do you think so many of our youth lose their way and abandon their faith while in university?”

Several possible reasons were offered. The first was that we don’t pray for them enough, which is likely true but to me doesn’t address the fact that if they are going in unprepared, prayer may make them them bolder in their faith (which is good) but it will not suddenly cause them to be prepared. Preparation happens by way of years of both overt and nuanced conversations, experiences, and being specifically taught. It comes through years of rubbing shoulders with those in our society who believe strongly and differently and whom you will eventually face anyway, so why not start them young? We all as parents want to protect our children from negative influences, and that again is good intent, but are we really protecting them when we rob them of those experiences that will test their faith and give them a first look at the real world or are we actually shielding them from a battle they need to learn to fight for their own good?

It is much like the parent who allows the over-aged and fiscally irresponsible child to live with them, abusing what they meant as a helping hand, and somewhat inadvertently allowing him to proliferate his incompetence. Whether out of sympathy or what the parent believes to be love, this is clearly not true love. It might make the parent feel better, thinking that they are ‘helping out during a tough time’ but it is certainly not an avenue by which the child will have to eventually face the harsh reality of his actions and bear the consequences that come because of them. And because of that, by enabling the child to continue in his way with no serious attempt at correction, the parents are reducing the likelihood of his redemption; they are essentially stepping in the way of God’s plan.

My opinion on the matter is that there is a lack of intellectual preparation in the lives of most Christian youth. This is the fault of both the Church and the parents. From my personal experience, observing those of my friends who went to university, it was the first time that their faith faced any serious challenges. Youth from Christian homes spend their share of time in Church services, youth events, and some in Christian schools, but still too many of them have no strategy to face the world they inevitably will have to face, a world that will in most cases be opposed to almost everything they have known as normal.

Somehow the discussion turned to friendship evangelism, the need to show love rather than condemnation, and the importance of being good examples for our children. One man said that maybe making an intellectual defense of faith was not for everyone. If that is the case, I suggest that people who feel they are not thus predisposed never attend a university at all. Certainly it is true that some over-intellectualize their faith (I am probably one of them) and that some who are not overly inclined toward intellectualism will be wonderful examples of Christ’s love in factories and fields, but the question was about universities, and one goes to a university to expand and sharpen the intellect, so I think it is appropriate to expect any university student who professes a faith in Christ to be able to make an intellectual defense of that faith.

The visiting missionary was given a chance to rebut but squandered the opportunity on a very diplomatic “I agree with everything that was said here but…”. He was concerned with the lack of doctrine being taught to our youth (I am too); he was concerned that so few people even bother to bring their Bibles to church any more (I am too); he was alarmed at the low level at which the average Christian seems to function (I am too), but he kept coming back to doctrine.

At some point near the end of his comment, while he was essentially reneging on his earlier commitment to diplomacy by disagreeing with a number of ideas just shared, he proclaimed emphatically “If we don’t have doctrine, we have nothing!” and this immediately struck me as the ironic opposite of doctrine itself because it brought to memory Chapter Thirteen of St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians where he says:

And if I have prophetic powers,
and understand all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but have not love,
I am nothing.

Paul doesn’t say love PLUS doctrine, or love PLUS faith, in fact he says that doctrine and faith are nothing if they are not empowered and delivered with love. Now, I know what this godly and respectable man was getting at – it’s the half-hearted or misdirected love that I described above, the thin form of love that claims itself to be a substitute for, rather than an enabler of faith and doctrine. But still, it seems ironic to me that he would place doctrine itself rather than love as the prime precursor as doctrine actually teaches.

As an addendum, this was followed by someone else with a view of an ecumenism that belittles doctrine and a comment about how foolish people think that unity can be found by saying specific doctrine really isn’t as important as we’ve made it out to be. It was stated, once again emphatically that “Real unity is found in strong doctrine!”, but in a very literal way, with plenty of available examples, this attitude has caused far more division than unity. The stronger and more defined a doctrine is, and the more adamant about the absolute truth of that doctrine the person who believes it is, the less chance there is of that person finding unity with anyone. We can split the hairs (and heirs) of our doctrinal heads until none of us believes anything exactly alike; this has been proven over and over again.

A CONFESSION

Those of you who have known me in the past would now find me far more on the conservative side of most things than I ever would have been in the past. This whole study of church history is one that has greatly increased my respect for the historical aspects of both church and society… thus, I believe our history is important… thus, I want to conserve (or preserve) as much of it as is necessary to right the wrongs in our current society.

There you go: I am a conservative. Please forgive my previous liberal and/or communist and/or anti-capitalist leanings. It is another example of something I needed to get to the end of before I could decide what I thought about it. One thing rings true in almost everything I do… in the words of Marshall McLuhan : “I don’t know what I think until I’ve said it.”

To whom then am I referring when I make references to “conservative sects”, “neo-Ananbaptists” or “radical Anabaptists”? When I use these terms I am referring to groups like the one mentioned in my blog entry entitled “Basking in the Aftermath” – especially take note of the section which begins “The strategy of these groups (in this case what I would describe as conservative neo-Anabaptist)…”

Often when we try to separate too completely the spiritual and the physical, we create an unhealthy dichotomy between the two. That is in fact, as I see it, although to a far more extreme degree, the main pitfall of Anabaptist theology. Marshall McLuhan again: “The seventeenth-century Protestants abandoned the world and the flesh to the Devil and packed up for Zion. They found the climate there impossible and returned to earth only to discover that the Devil had been making hay.” [pullquote]“The seventeenth-century Protestants abandoned the world and the flesh to the Devil and packed up for Zion. They found the climate there impossible and returned to earth only to discover that the Devil had been making hay.”[/pullquote]

That is still true today and they still refuse to live in this world, separating themselves to a degree that they can have no effect on the world apart form launching the occasional missive about how bad and corrupt not just the world is, but how bad and corrupt the rest of us “Christians” are.

When you say that you have no doubt that we do do these things (sports, movies, imbibing) for ourselves, I hope that you would agree that the sin in those things is if we do them ONLY for ourselves and in a spirit of rebellion in which we acknowledge that they are bad but do them anyway. Of course we do those things partly for ourselves – that is what is means to take care of yourself and I don’t think it is impossible to properly partake of any of those activities without also growing in Christ at the same time.

If there are times, and I would say they are extremely rare BUT STILL NOT JUSTIFIED, that we indulge too far in any of these and sin, it is incumbent on us first to repent, and then to learn to control that which we have trouble controlling, not to cease taking part in it (not permanently anyway). To me that is like asking your child to stop riding his bike because he falls off occasionally. Riding a bike is good and useful, and with proper training and guidance it will yield him great advantages. [pullquote]To me that is like asking your child to stop riding his bike because he falls off occasionally. Riding a bike is good and useful, and with proper training and guidance it will yield him great advantages.[/pullquote]

SPORTS

Sports are useful because they are a microcosm of life that is contained in a physical space in an abbreviated time. There are enormous spiritual and practical life lessons to be learned. It IS possible. In the space of one game there are numerous opportunities to practice self-control, restraint, kindness, encouragement and to learn discipline.

Is there a tendency to idolize professional sports? Absolutely, you need only refer to my own recent missive regarding the Promise Keepers mentality to know that I recognize that. But again, is the fact that something can be idolized a good reason to forsake it completely?

I don’t believe it is and this is what I was trying to get at in my post: these Anabaptists will shun anything that can be idolized absolutely, no questions, but challenge them to forsake the very thing that is most idolized, not just in present society but in all of history, and they have to start making amendments to their theology. That thing is sex.

Are many people addicted? Yes. Does that mean we should ban it? No, I don’t think anyone would argue that. So you must apply the same principle to all of these other activities: are they really bad intrinsically or because sinful principles have been applied to them?

Can one play sports without sinning? Yes, I can give you many irrefutable examples of this.

Can one consume alcohol without sinning? Yes, but admittedly it is a tougher one to control.

Can one watch a movie without sinning? Yes, I rarely watch a movie that I do not think can have some positive spiritual effect on me or illuminate some truth to me. Its why I rarely watch comedies.

Can we ever do anything without occasionally sinning? No, not on this side of heaven.

THINGS OF THE WORLD

“They were avoiding all things of the world. Does not the Bible warn us of such things?”

It certainly does, and if you look closely it speaks in principles, not in very many particulars. It would be easier in a sense if it had defined the things of this world as sports, movies, and alcohol, wouldn’t it? But it doesn’t. What we are trying to learn is how to make these things useful for God’s glory and how to avoid becoming engrossed in them for their own sake or for the sake of our sinful fleshly desires.

“However, when we focus on things other than God, we are in a sense “avoiding” fellowship with God.”

Absolutely, but what are the things you are thinking of that are “other than God”? They would have to be things that are intrinsically bad. I would say that these are principles rather than practices with the caveat that some practices are by design biased toward evil.

The things that the Bible says are intrinsically bad are greed, lust, envy, etc. Some practices are difficult, if not impossible to participate in without engaging these intrinsic evils. I think this is where the admonishment not to judge comes in. It seems some are more prone to certain intrinsic evils than others, but don’t we often try to formulate a universal prohibition regarding the areas in which we are the weakest?

Some can be rich and not sin; others cannot be rich without sinning. They gloat, they bully, they use their privilege to cause others misery. Those who can be rich and not sin because of it should go ahead and be rich! Some can look at a nude human form and see beauty (Europeans seem to be much better at this than we are) without lusting while others cannot look at a human form, clothed or not, without lusting!

“Deciding for ourselves a biblical interpretation that suits our own agendas?”

If it is not for us to decide, then for whom is it? So far you have somehow (miraculously! LOL) avoided getting me started on the deficiencies of the Protestant Reformation and the logical extremes of the outcomes we see around us.

[pullquote]The destructive, hyper-speed individualism is what drives many of the societal deficiencies you have been noting.[/pullquote] The destructive, hyper-speed individualism is what drives many of the societal deficiencies you have been noting. Now don’t take that as me saying “Na-na-na, Catholicism is better,” because that’s not my point. There is a great tradition of Protestant thought as well that strikes against what modern day Protestantism has become, but the ‘each man is to decide by his own conscience what to believe’ philosophy that exploded out of the Reformation has done immeasurable damage to both church and society at large.

I agree that we should curb activities that reduce or eliminate our capacity to fellowship with God. I have taken many steps in that direction in the last while and it does enable more focus on family and more time for fellowship with God.

What I found though, as I did venture into this strain of Anabaptist theology for a time, is that my life was not enriched at all by trying to eliminate every carnal (by their definition) activity – in fact, my life was becoming impoverished, law-bound and I was becoming, as the old cliche goes “So heavenly minded that I was no earthly good.”

As long as you see the things you mentioned as concessions rather than blessings and opportunities, you will not be able to see how God can be found in and through them when they are properly used.