Undeception

I’m going to get to the theology part in a minute, but first let me ask a couple relevant questions.

Why do we have a representative democracy? Why do we not all personally vote for what we believe? The answer is not, “Because that would be a democracy, and democracies are tyrannical.” Pure democracies are tyrannical, and that is indeed why we do not live in a pure democracy, but it is not true that every person voting on every issue would need to be that sort of democracy. If we had a democracy based upon the rule of law (a nomocracy), we’d not have any more tyranny than we do now; in fact, our government would reflect the concerns of the citizenry more closely, and with the lawful constraint on disenfranchisement of minorities, we could theoretically end up having a more just system.

I then considered that the actual reason we don’t have a nomocratic democracy was that such a system would be too unwieldy (especially in the 18th century) and that bundling our interests in local representatives was the only efficient way of going about things; for who has time to vote on every topic that comes up? So, I reasoned, we vote people into office whom we think will best represent our interests, and then go about our daily lives. And that sort of thinking is what led our federal government to become such a Leviathan, doing infinitely more than it was originally delegated to do.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

– Thomas Paine

But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.

– Andrew Jackson

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.

– John Adams

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.

– Thomas Jefferson

I cite these men because their warnings were not heeded and it is because of this that our federal government has overreached itself in everything it touches. It is because people believed, as I did, that they could outsource their political interests and depend on the candidates who sounded – and in many cases, actually were – the best and wisest. Our vigilance was not eternal, and so our freedom has proved to be finite as well. We must not be content to vote for people, still less for parties; we must vote for issues. Until we give it a voice, we will have to keep satisfying ourselves with merely “more conservative” than the other, steadily more liberal option. If conservatives these many years had been voting their principles and consciences instead of just whatever party their parents told them or whoever they thought could beat the other guy, we’d not be in the predicament we are today; we’d likely not be stuck with only two parties. We’re not voting to win elections; we’re voting so that what we are convinced is the truth can be made known and our contingent given a voice, for how else will what’s right ever become popular enough for us to win elections with?

I find a parallel in popular theology today.

Josh at the Smoak House asked his readers which modern teachers were their biggest influences. Not surprisingly, among the first mentioned were Chuck Swindoll, Al Mohler, and John Piper. Now, nothing against these guys (one of whom I greatly respect), but this led me to musing: why do we know all these big name preachers, anyway? By my lights, among the failings of the church that most needs to be addressed is the herd mentality that comes from cheering on certain teachers as though they were some sports team. I am convinced that we sit at the feet of these big name preachers because it makes us feel secure in our theology to be able to listen to someone we can trust to lead us into all truth (wait — I thought that was the Holy Spirit…). We outsource our theology to these guys and accept what they have to say simply because they’re “Christian leaders”.

Christians must be taught to think critically. It’s a testament to the opposite trend that this virtue has turned into a pejorative: “Oh, he’s just too critical.” Critical means “judging” and that word nowadays has negative connotations, but Scripture is quite clear that we are to test everything before accepting it; we judge the teachings, not the teachers. Ask yourself, of all those teachers/preachers you listen to, when was the last time you disagreed with something they said? If you don’t come across something you disagree with in every teaching you listen to, perhaps you are not listening critically enough (or you are listening to someone reading directly from the New Testament!). I guess another option is that they are teaching things that you already agree upon, which prompts the question, what good is it doing you aside from shoring up what you already believe? There’s some good in that — although it would help you more if you sought out someone who disagrees and put up your belief against theirs — but we aren’t to camp in comfortable sites of agreement; break up the fallow ground.

The temptation we have fallen under is either to throw out everything or to cling to everything devotedly. If you’re a Wesleyan and the preacher is a Wesleyan, and you are enjoying his agreement with your core beliefs, when he decides to teach you something else that he believes as a result of his Wesleyanism, you don’t have to agree with him. He might be wrong, even if you agree on his underlying principles or on a great part of his justifying arguments. Just because John Piper argues passionately and articulately for something you believe in doesn’t mean you should just accept whatever else he waxes passionate and articulate about, even if he ties it to whatever it is you appreciate about his teaching. At the very least, we should never extend the benefit of the doubt, because no one alive can ever truly be above doubt.

No, we shouldn’t listen to people just to pick them apart; in fact, if you can’t listen to them without ripping them to shreds for sloppy exegesis, bad logic, or shallowness, then what’s the use in listening to them? What I am saying is that the church has by and large not successfully fought the urge to accept in toto what is being said by someone their sect agrees with on key, defining doctrines (so Calvinists listen to Calvinists for how they smack down Arminians, etc.). And unfortunately but understandably, these teachers most often just accept their position on the pedestal because they believe that no one can go wrong believing what they do, since they assume (naturally) that what they believe is true. I’m not faulting these leaders for saying things that are compelling enough to attract regular listeners; in fact, most of them would probably advise you to critically think about what they’re teaching you.

As I believe Josh does, the sort of influence I most respect does not generally come from the teachings themselves, but from the educational philosophy of the teacher: as in any area of life, a good teacher is one who doesn’t get so bogged down teaching facts that he forgets to teach how to learn. R.C. Sproul is a good teacher, because he uses a broad range of sources to base his teaching on, including philosophy, ancient history, and various traditions within church history. Somehow with all this, I am no less inclined to hang on his every word but all the more inspired to follow his example in my own study. Sproul’s sources are the very ones we should all use when interpreting Scripture; instead, we are essentially encouraged to stick with “me, my Bible, and the teacher du jour” in order stay safe and keep away from the dangers of critical thinking. But even “me, my Bible, and a vetted teacher like R.C. Sproul” isn’t enough. People like Sproul are not fishmongers: they’re trying to teach us how to fish for ourselves. And yes, one of the “lures” we should avail ourselves of is the consultation of good teachers, but no combination of Christian teachers alone is going to give the level of understanding we should be expecting.

Do you see the link I’m making? Outsourcing our theology and refusing to recognize that even our favorite teachers frequently make weak assertions and outright errors will prove to have been as detrimental as the political naiveté I described above. Cults of personality, in lesser and greater degrees, control most Americans humans. Republican evangelicals are sickened by the amount of fawning over Obama from the Left, but make no mistake: if the other ticket had won, a great number of these same people would fawn over Sarah Palin, glossing over many of her mistakes and sometimes even adopting them in order to defend her (much the same way that so many of them currently uncritically fawn over Rush Limbaugh and/or Sean Hannity). We can’t, as responsible Christians, simply accept certain people as our leaders and theological proxies, and then unquestioningly trust them to always do or say the right thing (even Christian leaders!). Acknowledging this is crucial; no less crucial is the realization that those we respect the most are probably outrageously wrong every now and again and that we’ll follow them down the wrong paths if we’re not vigilant.

We’ve got to do better at lovingly, respectfully, but unfailingly holding our political and our theological leaders accountable for their positions; decent leaders won’t mind, and good ones will want you to.  If I may paraphrase President Jackson’s comment about government: Eternal vigilance by the church is the price of Truth.

The hyper-(not hypo-)critical Mike Beidler http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com