While looking at the current Christian scene, many questions arise concerning correct methodology in light of one's theology. I believe that we can turn to B.B. Warfield to learn a valuable lesson. Concerning the topic of contextualizing biblical theology Warfield wrote, "Instead of stating Christian belief in terms of modern thought, an effort is made, rather, to state modern thought in terms of Christian belief" (email for reference). He wrote this statement in his defense against liberalism's invention of a false Christianity. However, Warfield violated his own principle. Rather than holding to the traditional Princetonian position of remaining true to historic biblical theology, Warfield succumbed to an increasingly popular position on creation because he felt that the evidence was too compelling to hold to the traditional six day, twenty-four hour view of this doctrine. Now that we see the "evidence" in light of what it truly is, namely nothing more than theory, we must ask what we can learn from Warfield's error. Just like in Warfield's day, theologians are justifying their refashioning of Christianity to suit their own naturalistic philosophies for the end of modernizing it.
If Warfield fell to the influence of Darwinism, what are the versions of naturalistic philosophy with which we are faced? I would say that one of the greatest enemies of the church that we face is that of humanism cloaked in Christian terminology. Our culture has so influenced the church's theology that many pastors and their parishioners have succumbed to man-centered theology resulting from the current secular humanism of today. Americans are "me-centered" and thus will only accept a theology that imposes our consumeristic view of life on God and His word. How do passages such as 1 Peter 2:21, in which Jesus left us an example of suffering so that we would follow in His steps, or 1 Peter 4:12-19, which teaches us how to suffer as a Christian according to God's will, coincide with the heresy of Joel Olsteen or the semi-Pelagian Church Growth Movement espoused by Warren and others? May our theology drive our methods and may we not allow our culture's disdain for authority to produce a non-biblical theology, which will lead to further atrocities such as "seeker-friendly churches."
JRW
If Warfield fell to the influence of Darwinism, what are the versions of naturalistic philosophy with which we are faced? I would say that one of the greatest enemies of the church that we face is that of humanism cloaked in Christian terminology. Our culture has so influenced the church's theology that many pastors and their parishioners have succumbed to man-centered theology resulting from the current secular humanism of today. Americans are "me-centered" and thus will only accept a theology that imposes our consumeristic view of life on God and His word. How do passages such as 1 Peter 2:21, in which Jesus left us an example of suffering so that we would follow in His steps, or 1 Peter 4:12-19, which teaches us how to suffer as a Christian according to God's will, coincide with the heresy of Joel Olsteen or the semi-Pelagian Church Growth Movement espoused by Warren and others? May our theology drive our methods and may we not allow our culture's disdain for authority to produce a non-biblical theology, which will lead to further atrocities such as "seeker-friendly churches."
JRW
Post a Comment