My favorite professor at Asbury Seminary is Joe Dongell. So the first part of this post is a shout out to him. His desire for loving God and neighbor and learning the truth, his eclectic taste in music and bizarre yet hilarious sense of humor (how is it that the parsing of all verbs in his Latin class ends up being verbs of violent action?), his humility to admit where he's wronged another and zeal for integrating the academic and missional life, are traits that I wish to embody if and when I should be fortunate to be found in a post as professor of theology. He has so many one-liners that could keep you busy laughing and pondering all day. Yes, I have a man crush on Joe Dongell.
On several occasions during my seminary journey, I recall him stating what he saw as a general truth when it comes to the human pursuit: "I find that people generally are running away from something more than they are running toward something." I think his observation is accurate. We react to things, to ideas, to events. That's what we do. Our actions, attitudes, and opinions are often geared at trying to avoid errors more than they are at really searching for what is good and true and beautiful. For a while, I must admit, I didn't see anything wrong with this mentality. But then I came to see the folly in always reacting, in always avoiding, that I was missing out on some things I needed to hear. That's not to say that avoiding errors is all bad, but there comes a point when we need to realize that we ought to have an end or goal in sight. Who, at the end of one's life, wants to say, "My sole purpose was to avoid ______ and in that regard I _________ (succeeded/failed?)"?
(Quick aside: as an illustration of how we can grow from one to the other - the early Methodists had one requirement for admission into the society: the desire to "flee the wrath to come." That's certainly along the lines of avoiding something. But the aim after admission is to grasp toward something...namely holiness, which is marked by a whole host of things; most notably the love of God and neighbor. Wow, I could really go on about this, but I have something else in mind for this post.)
Now there could be all sorts of motivations for wanting to avoid certain things. A common reason (excuse?) is that we've seen an abuse of a certain idea. Therefore, we don't want to be associated in any way whatsoever with the thing, the idea, or the party who represents it. The trouble comes when we are confronted with the possibility that although the "opposing" party may have been mostly wrong about what they thought, believed, or practiced, that there was some truth behind or in the midst of them and/or their ideas that we needed to have seen and heard.
What we need in the theological arena today is a good dose of what is commonly called the 'via media.' I would say that John Wesley was a master of "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater." But it's not like he came up with this idea. He was an heir of a theological tradition (Anglican) that didn't seek to avoid one extreme on an issue by going to the complete opposite pole. The Anglican 'via media,' though is not merely a mission of seeking balance in all matters. It is a means of seeking truth in all matters...and the search for truth includes finding what is right and wrong on each end of the spectrum. That Wesley practiced this 'method,' as it were, is evidenced by the fact that he was accused of Pelagianism by many Calvinists and of being antinomian by the moralists of his day.
What I'm calling for here, and what Wesley exuded, is not the typical "buffet-style" approach to religion and theology. Rather, it is a disciplined practice of assessing the truth in what we hear and see and think. I'm not picking and choosing according to what I like and don't like, what makes me feel good, and so on. (At least that's not the aim of my practice.) It is searching for what stands and passes the test of Scripture, how it has been interpreted through the years, to reason, and to the experiences that we have in our own lives and in the testimonies of witnesses for 2000+ years, and comes out on the other side as "true and trustworthy." We don't live in the "middle ground" for the sake of being moderate. We live in the 'middle' because it enables us to hold many seemingly contradictory truths in tension by the Truth, Jesus Christ. So we embrace that Christ has done something FOR us, while at the same time admitting that he is willing and able to do something IN us...and THROUGH us. Many run toward the "IN" and forsake the "FOR" and vice versa. The fact is that both are true. Not 50% of one and 50% of the other. They're both wholly true. Live in that!
For a good case study of how Wesley wrestles and nuances his position, yet seeks unity in the necessities, see his sermon 'The Lord our Righteousness.' In the beginning of the sermon Wesley contends that disagreements are more "in words than in sentiments: they are much nearer in judgment than in language." There's truth there. How many times in theological dialogue/debate do you see the parties just talking past each other, not realizing that they have more common ground than they assume. Some other thoughts from that sermon that apply here: "And why should you be angry at an expression? 'Oh, it has been abused.' And what expression has not? However, the abuse may be removed, and at the same time the use remain." "I allow you to use whatever expressions you choose, and that a thousand times over; only guarding them against that dreadful abuse which you are as deeply concerned to prevent as I am...And be not angry with me if I cannot judge it proper to use any one expression every two minutes. You may if you please; but do not condemn me because I do not." But ultimately, "All the blessings I enjoy, all I hope for in time and in eternity, are given wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for me."
No comments:
Post a Comment