Prolegomenon
Shrimp are good. This statement, it must be candidly admitted, is a statement of opinion, or at least I believe it to be. I could make the biblical-theological argument that shrimp are good, in a categorical sense, precisely because God declared them good (Gen 1:20-21), but that would be stretching the parameters of my statement just a bit (this would also open the door for potential debate and speculation regarding the post-diluvian state of fallen shrimp, which would, again, likely generate more heat than light). Shrimp are good because I enjoy eating shrimp, therefore I casually regard them as good. This is what we might call a preference, or even a subjective claim – something which is not stated to be intrinsically true but is simply my own proclivity. I am not claiming that shrimp must be good for everyone, nor am I appealing to a law or rule that declares shrimp definitionally good in every case. If someone has an aversion to shrimp, for example, I would hastily qualify my statement with something along the lines of “well, I for one personally enjoy shrimp” (and then subsequently mourn their apparent lack of taste).
There are other categories that are not illuminated as helpfully by such musings as the above discussion regarding dietary proclivities and shrimp consumption. Some things are not matters of personal preference and are not dependent on the nuances of language. No one would regard the statement “shrimp are good” to be an ontological truth claim, they would understand it to be a statement of preference. But if the stovetop in my home is on and I warn my child that the stovetop is hot, I mean this as a binding truth claim. The stovetop is not hot to me alone, as if this were a matter of personal preference. I mean to convey that the stovetop is hot as an absolute truth claim of sorts. It is hot regardless of what my child may wish, regardless of how they may feel about stovetops, regardless about their past experiences with stovetops or their hopes for the future of stovetops and cooking ranges in general.
I once heard a wise man observe that if you press down hard enough on any given illustration, it will surely crumble (which I believe to be accurate – this present case being no exception). That being said, let me press down on the hot stovetop for just a moment further (so to speak). You may object to my statement that the stovetop is hot since it may only be set to medium high and not high. That is, there may be precious few clicks left on the knob, and you may hold the knowledge that the stovetop is not quite as hot as the manufacturer’s guidelines will permit in this case. You may therefore object to my authoritative statement that the stovetop is hot and demand that I qualify my statement. Much like the declaration that shrimp are good, there is a tangibly postmodern aversion to making any such authoritative claim. In similar fashion to the shrimp, or so the argument goes, we should instead only observe that the stovetop is hot to some but perhaps not to most. That it is hot, though the nature of heat and efficacy of modern heating elements deserves more thoroughgoing consideration. We may observe that the stovetop is certainly glowing (or, that it certainly appears to be, from our epistemological standpoint), yet it is likely not glowing as voraciously as it might.
Yet none of this will prevent the stovetop from burning our hand when we reach out to touch it.
A Preference for Truth
Food preferences are simply that – they are preferences. We know that they are preferences and regard them as such within church fellowship (interpersonal divisions at potlucks notwithstanding). Preferences are not a cause for division within the church (let us repeat for emphasis), and we accordingly present our preferential opinions with a gentleness and respect that is suitable to Christian conduct. Yet we regard issues of truth without such soft-padded gloves. If a stovetop were left on in the church kitchen (to finally stretch this illustration beyond its reasonable parameters), we would regard it nonsensical to debate whether it should be turned off or not. We would not label this recognition of truth as unloving or fundamentalist – it is simply true.
Perhaps more to the point, we would regard such things as true precisely because they exist outside of us. The taste of a shrimp is quite dependent on the taste buds of the consumer, the experience of those taste buds, the proclivities of that person's psyche, and a host of other factors – yet the heat of a stovetop is hot regardless of one’s experience of the heat. It simply is hot. We may refer to this as something with an external or even transcendent authority – its truth is validated by something beyond us (while noting that this is not an argument regarding empiricism or Neoplatonism – though I could see how it easily might be).
How puzzling, then, that so many things are regarded as matters of preference – as if there is no absolute truth claim which may hold, but only matters of individual preference and taste (cf. Carl Trueman's recent work). The Person and work of Jesus Christ seems a foundational enough doctrine for examination – certainly this seems definitional to the Christian faith by most coherent standards. Most Christians would agree that there is a orthodox truth claim regarding Christ – that is to say, there are things that are true about Christ that reside beyond the realm of personal experience (though this is certainly not universally accepted, and likely pushes me into the camp of 'fundamentalist piracy' – let the reader understand). There may be a subjective claim about Christ – what do the words of Christ mean to you, or some such devotional fare. Yet the most important aspects of Christ are authoritative truth claims: who is Jesus Christ and what has He done, for instance. This claim of authoritative truth certainly seems to be consistent with the Gospel accounts, where questions such as who is this Jesus? occurred with astonishing frequency (cf. Matt 16:13-14). And Jesus did not regard these questions as esoteric or superfluous, rather He clarified that it is, in fact, vitally important that others reckon with His identity in truth (Matt 16:15). This was no matter of personal preference – Jesus regarded a true knowledge about Him to be vital (John 14:6).
Yet there is a modern tendency to ignore significant matters of doctrine – modern in the sense that this tendency is tangibly present in contemporary society, yet not modern as to suggest that this tendency is any newer than the first recorded words of a serpent (Gen 3:1). Knowledge of Jesus Christ is an essential Christian doctrine – to which we might receive a hearty ‘amen’ in many Christian circles. Yet how far must that knowledge extend? Must we consider such weighty things as Christ’s sinlessness? The doctrine of the Incarnation and the mysterious nature of the hypostatic union? The generation of the Son and the divine simplicity of the Trinity? These words and phrases may seem a bit heady, and we may therefore conclude that a more ‘simple’ belief about Jesus is not only enough but is in fact more noble and pure. We may comfort ourselves by contending that doctrine is divisive, and a simple, unstudied faith is likely best in most cases. And we ponder with amazement when we read recent studies that reveal that most self-described Christians in the West reject many of the primary distinctive beliefs that historically and biblically constitute one as an orthodox Christian. Simply put, we celebrate our lack of doctrinal clarity as a sign of our unity and generosity, yet we seem to betray many of our convictions in the process.
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” ― Winston Churchill
The Need for Clarity
I would like to humbly, yet firmly, suggest that what the Christian church desperately needs is not less doctrine, but more. The Christian church faces a number of challenges on the horizon – challenges that I argue may be novel in our experience yet challenges which are not unprecedented in our biblical preparedness (see previous post). The challenges that currently confront the church might include the advent of COVID-19 and the various accompanying governmental responses, the increasingly heated environment of race relations, the ever-present hazard of moral therapeutic deism boldly masquerading as Christianity, and this list could grow to be quite long indeed if we included every worthy inclusion. What I would like to suggest is that what we need in the face of these challenges is not less doctrine, but more. There is an impulse to sacrifice doctrine for perceived unity – to ‘circle the wagons’ against these existential threats, while ignoring the pressing reality that some of these wagons are in significant and unavoidable conflict with the truth. I would like to suggest that the true way forward is the way of clinging to truth – not abandoning it precisely when it is needed most.
This is to then suggest that there is nothing noble with pandering to the theological middle, so to speak (and often reflects a rather unique theological hubris). “This is no time to argue about [insert doctrine here], Christians have argued for centuries and there is surely no perfect answer” may be an understandable impulse, yet it is surely a misguided one. This is not a plea to be argumentative, please understand. This is, however, a plea to recognize that Christians are called to a battle, and that battles involves violent struggle (Eph 6:12). This is likewise a plea to recognize that struggling in that battle will glorify the God that we serve (Eph 3:10), the God who has overcome every evil in this world (1 Jn 4:4). This is a call to hold fast to the doctrines that give definition and contour to our faith (2 Thes 2:15), recognizing that a bold defiance against the perversion and denigration of those doctrines is something the biblical writers met with such vitriol that it would likely not be allowed from most Christian pulpits (Gal 5:12). This is a recognition that holding to eternal truths that are set forth by God is an extremist viewpoint, and that we must be comfortable operating within such extremism in this day and age.
SDG,
Josh Howard
Josh Howard serves as the Elder/Pastor at Grace Community Church in Battle Creek, MI, co-hosts the Good Doctrine Podcast, and is an alumni of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (PhD, ThM).
Comments