There is a line that it may be tempting to cross. Perhaps you have been studying in a certain area of theology. Perhaps it is personal experience that is pushing you in a certain direction. Perhaps you are tired of a certain over-emphasis in your church circles.
So you preach (or write, or converse about, or blog about) something. You try to expand the horizons, the categories, the awareness of your listeners. You paint a glorious picture of oft-neglected theological vistas. In the process you help people to see more clearly, to understand more fully, to respond more holistically. But that is where danger lurks.
In shifting the emphasis, even if only for one message, you will be tempted to cross a line. The line is crossed when instead of helping people see more and to see it clearly, you move from addition to contrast. It is crossed when your study or experience or emphasis takes you to a point where you decide not just to add to the listeners’ understanding, but you decide to contrast your focus with some aspect of orthodoxy.
So actually the Cross wasn’t about that, it was about this. So really God isn’t that, but this. So now we see that Christianity is not about that at all, but only this. Careful. Extremely careful!
There are things in all church traditions that may be labeled orthodoxy, but are actually biblically errant. I am not saying we can never contrast or critique. I believe we must. What I am saying is that a throw away comment about an emphasis within orthodox theology can come back to bite.
I was just reading a book. I was enjoying it. In fact, I read a page that took my breath away it was so well-written. Then there was a throw away comment of unnecessary contrast. How easy to do that unawares in writing, in preaching, in conversation. Evangelical theology needs critique on various levels, but throw away contrast comments are not going to achieve anything other than vilifying their source. You.
What we say matters. Be careful!
I’m interested in what you’re talking about here, but you’re dealing so much in abstracts and generalities that I’m having trouble getting my mind around exactly what you’re talking about. Can you give an example or two?
For example . . . in one book I’ve been reading – after several great paragraphs on the incarnation and work of Christ in the atonement, a throw away contrast is given that crosses the line, “The death of Jesus Christ is not punishment from the hands of an angry God, it is . . .” One contrast that appears to deny propitiation. It wasn’t necessary. The other presentation given stood up as a helpful addition or even potentially as a corrective emphasis, but not as a contrast to substitutionary atonement.
We can easily do the same in preaching. Preaching the exemplary nature of Christ’s submission in 1Peter 2, it might be easy to let slip a comment contrasting this with the usual emphasis on substitutionary atonement, but have it come out as denying substitutionary atonement. Or while preaching some aspect of the full humanity of Christ, inadvertently imply a denial of his deity.
“It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13 I am sure this is quite a contrast for your “faith”. But I suspect “and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”, Acts 2:23, is a bit beyond the line “The death of Jesus Christ is punishment from the hands of an angry God”. Prehaps that is why it is written”Do not go beyond what is written” for when one does he does appear as the fool who has.
Thanks for the explanation, Peter. I see what you’re saying, and it’s a very good point. Peace.