Forging the Faith

The Five Solas are the cornerstone of virtually every Protestant doctrine. 

• Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
• Sola fide ("by faith alone")
• Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
• Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
• Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

This ancient list, handed down to us from the holy mountain of the Reformation, has become to Protestant theology the new stone tablets; authoritative, absolute, and beyond the understanding of mere mortals. None may question these firmly established laws, given to us so clearly by men far greater than ourselves five centuries ago. 

Except for the minor issue that it was only in the 1900s that this list was formulated. The invention of sliced bread predates this clean organized list of five solas. Granted, concepts similar to these doctrines were taught by most reformers at some point or another, but given the ponderous amount of literature and preaching that came out of the Reformation, there are many other doctrines that they taught that have been lost to the common parishioner. Yet this list, which has been refined only recently, is taught as an ancient teaching that should be revered for its age and origin, rather than doctrine that has been communally agreed upon by a large group of theologians within the last century. 

Ironically, those who hold this list as sacred would find that sola scriptura would advocate for them to drop this list, as this list is not found in Scripture; indeed many of these concepts could be and have been challenged by believers with Scripture. Why is it then that so many Christians hold so strongly to the Five Solas? 

A large part of the issue here is a desire for an ancient and sure theology that has been upheld by great men of the past. If great and wise leaders have united around this teaching it must be sound, right? Much of our popular Christian religion habits of the twenty-first century are really products of the last century or so, but rebranded as ancient and accepted theology. Things like altar calls and Sunday Schools are much newer than we would assume. Modern pop culture reading of Revelation, thanks to easy to digest fiction works that shall remain nameless, give rise to doctrines that are rather new but implied to be ancient.

This forging of doctrines to look ancient in order to be accepted is an indication of our human tendency to follow the 'broad way' rather than search for truth ourselves. We follow whatever looks popular, or perhaps what is being preached by the loudest and most confidant preachers of our times, and we put our faith in the ancient aspects of the teachings rather than in Christ.

Our faith should not be in how old or commonly accepted a doctrine is, but whether or not Jesus taught it. Wether we hold Sola Scriptura, Nuda Scriptura, or Prima Scriptura our chief focus should always be on Christ, not human doctrines. Holding fast to this list of traditional theology that itself denies the authority of tradition is an ironic proof of our human nature to cling to what is comfortable rather than seek out what is painful, but true. Our calling is not blind obedience to doctrine, but a servant's heart and a willingness to take up our cross to follow Him. 

Demon Worship in America

Growing up I heard about many 'Satanic' things that I should avoid, Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, Procter and Gamble,  and of course the Freemasons. I heard tales of witches and devil worshipers, and the power granted to them. As an adult, I find that these things are just not what I was told. In fact, Procter and Gamble successfully sued Amway for spreading lies to its customers to steal sales. 

But don't get me wrong, there is still plenty of devil worship going on in America. The problem, however, is that it isn't outside the church, but in it. 

Satan is revered as the ultimate foe, the tempter of every Christian, the source of all our sorrows and temptations, and the cause of all evil in the world. He is ascribed power and ability, cunning and skill, strength and omniscience. He is feared and avoided, touted as the ultimate thing we should be wary of.

This is textbook worship; the reverence of a supernatural being and ascribing works and power to him. Another term for such practice is deification. 

Our sin and our temptation is not the devil's fault; its ours. God punished Adam for his sin, and Eve for hers. Our sin is our fault; we make those choices. The evil in the world is the fault of the choices of people; individuals who have chosen self over God. This is ultimate evil; the self, or flesh. That is what we deny. We are called to deny ourselves, to crucify our flesh. We are the villains of our own stories. Jesus is the hero. 

Now, it is much simpler to simply blame the devil. What could we do against some immortal spirit that once was an angel? It's easy to blame everything on the devil and give him the credit for all evil.

But that is false. The problem in our world is not that the devil is causing all our problems, its that we are. Our choices are what cause the evil in the world. Our denial of God is the problem, as individuals and groups. 

We want a villain outside of ourselves to blame, a scapegoat. It is comforting to think that our sin isn't our fault, that it was the result of some other factor or being. Yet it is our fault. We are responsible for our choices. 

The devil is not the opposite of God. We aren't trapped between an ultimate Good versus an ultimate Evil. There is no 'evil' opposite of God. Instead, there is only the option of following God or not following God. Choosing ourselves over God is ultimate defiance. 

Sadly, we find many Christians today obsess over the devil. They attribute all their problems to him and spend most of their time trying to avoid or fighting him off. 

Instead, we should focus on Christ. He is our life, love and very existence. With Him, we have everything we need. We have no need to fear anyone. No one and nothing is a match for our God. We have nothing to fear. God is Good. 

Selective Hearing

As a father and as a teacher, I'm amazed at the selective hearing that children have. They seem only to hear what they want to hear and will try to 'misunderstand' things in order to get to do what you clearly told them not to. It can be frustrating as the adult to correct this behavior.

God has to deal with us 'misunderstanding' things too. Two rules can be side by side, but if we want to defy His rules we find a way. Here's an example, but just for fun, I'll switch it with another command and see how well we understand the rule if its reapplied. Here's basically the re-written argument I've often heard.

As a Christian I carry a condom  handgun with me at all times. Now I know God forbids adultery murder, but I keep it just incase I need to sleep with someone kill someone in order to save my family. Sure, no-one I personally know has ever actually needed their condom  handgun, but you never know, these sorts of things happen on tv all the time. I would never willingly commit adultery kill someone, but I like the feeling of power that it gives me knowing I could if the situation presented itself. When I get together with other people who carry their condom  handgun,  we talk about how good it is to be prepared and how manly it makes us feel to have it just in case. In our free time we share videos of people describing how adultery self-defense isn't illegal in this country. Sure sometimes we aren't sure if its right to be waiting for a chance to commit adultery murder, but then we imagine a situation where the only way to save everyone is to sleep with shoot some stranger.

Isn't it strange how we try to justify murder but condemn adultery? We seem to be really clear on one rule, to the point of making half the sermons that young people hear about one, yet the other we try to ignore and even justify.

Secondly, I find there are two things Christians tend to carry with them at all times, ready to use if the situation might ever call for it: a handgun or a Bible. I find it interesting how many Christians have no issue sending a stranger into eternity, yet would be scared to explain eternity to a stranger. How is it that we care more for our lives than another persons soul? How have we gotten to a point where carrying a gun is not just normal, but expected and assumed by those followers of Christ who used to die for their faith? Is this what Christ desires of us? Are we being selective hearers?

What do you think?

Modern Mennonite Interviews

Introduction

I have long studied and advocated the Anabaptist teaching of history. At its heart, it started as an unwavering dedication to follow the commands of Jesus, given to us in the Gospels.
Fast forward five hundred years. In the era of iPhones, YouTube, and SnapChat, many of the traditions that have evolved have no relationship to the original dedication to Christ. Indeed, the issue of tradition has become as problematic in our era as it was for our forbearers half a millennium ago.

In this era of uncertainty of what is to become of the Mennonite faith and culture, I asked a dozen young people in their twenties and early thirties, raised in the Mennonite tradition, why they left the church and what their thoughts were on the future of the Mennonite people. Some were single, some married, with almost equal ratios of men and women. Here are their answers.

Question One: When Did You Decide to Leave the Mennonite Church?

Here we had varied answers. Some had left years ago, some only a few months ago. Some of the respondents gave more details as to what caused this separation. Location was mentioned by more than one person, for another, it wasn't a decision to leave as much as a gradual evolution of situation that made it too difficult to remain. Some would say even though they don’t attend a Mennonite church at the moment, they would not consider themselves separate from the Mennonite Church even though they were not currently attending for various reasons. Others felt pushed out by disagreements, they said.

Question Two: Do you still identify yourself as Mennonite? Why or why not?

Again the answers came from all over the field. One couple said yes, it was part of who they were. About half of those who responded said yes. These yeses varied from very firmly yes, to considering the Mennonite part of their faith as secondary to being Christians.
The other half felt differently. The no answers ranged from a short and simple ‘no’ to those who felt you could not identify as a Mennonite without attending a Mennonite church any more than a Baptist who didn’t attend a Baptist church.

Question Three: Was your departure based on Mennonite culture, teaching, or church experience?

The answers were again quite varied. One couple said all of the above, and felt that the church excluded anyone who didn’t fit the churches’ ideals. A few stated it was due to experiences in the church itself, also agreeing that those who were different from the Mennonite norm were not accepted and rather ostracized. There was one departure that was due solely to the lack of a Mennonite church in the area they moved to.
A few respondents were concerned with the church and disagreements within those bodies. One respondent in particular voiced strong concerns over what they believed were false teachings and doctrines that were allowed to grow in the Mennonite culture. The lack of discipline and sacraments were part of the respondents concerns, along with a distaste and condemnation of the amount of power that Mennonite doctrines and church leaders’ opinions had in the faith and teaching.

Question Four: Do you believe that the Mennonite tradition is still good for others to continue or do you think that this generation should assimilate into the culture around it?

Here all but one respondent felt that there were parts of Mennonite culture that should be preserved. The sense of community was praised by some, and most considered the culture of their past something that had as much value as the cultures around them. A few still thought that assimilation to an extent would be good, with the one response being very dismissive of the usefulness or value of any part of Mennonite culture.

Question Five: Do you think any part of the Mennonite way of life (traditions, teachings, language, or other items) needs to be preserved? Why or why not?

Surprisingly, virtually all of the respondents felt that the Mennonite language specifically was an important part of their history and should be preserved. Several voiced the opinion that history should not be forgotten and that we should continue to teach the next generation about our heritage. There were those who were quick to point out that this should not be done in a way that is exclusive or in any way made to imply superiority. Several people were very clear that they believed that the history of the Mennonite way should be preserved and taught as heritage, but not as the correct way of Christian living but instead the path that got us where we are. Another replied that the teachings and traditions as they have evolved need to be reevaluated, but that the origin of these teachings was good. Not all of the respondents felt that there was much to save of Mennonite culture or that it was worth the effort. 

Household Faith

A few weeks ago I attended an event I never thought I would attend in my life. Had someone told me a year ago that I would willingly attend this type of event and not condemn it outright, I would have laughed at the preposterous thought. Yet, there I was, in silent support. So what was this event that I attended? It was an infant baptism.

Obviously, this is the sort of thing that would still be hotly condemned by even the most lax of Mennonite Churches, but likely that's why it fascinated me so much. I am fairly certain that I am the first member of my family for half a millennium to attend such an event. Mennonites may not be sure about most of their original doctrines anymore: head coverings, war, politics, nationalism, or personal defense, but infant baptism would be possibly the strongest point of unity for this very fragmented and divided denomination.

Obviously, I have taught and backed Anabaptist doctrine for a good while. The founding concept of Anabaptist theology was a stance against infant baptism. However, as with most things in life, the concept of infant baptism is more nuanced than a single sort; the type my forbearers died fighting against. They stood against the Roman Catholic view that baptism is one of the seven sacraments that are required for salvation that must be administered. Indeed, as far as my understanding of Catholic sacraments goes, baptism is the only Sacrament that is required for a person to be saved. (Holding on to said salvation is more difficult in Catholic teaching, however and requires more sacraments). The Anabaptist doctrine on the subject of baptism would not view baptism as a sacrament but instead an ordinance. This meaning they believed it is commanded and should be obeyed, but is not salvific in any way. Instead, a Christian should have the desire to obey Christ after salvation and then be baptized on their faith. 

However, these are not the only two views of baptism. There is another school of thought that also views baptism as a sacrament, but does not consider it salvific. They believe that the household baptisms in Scripture, like those of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailor, and Stephanas, indicate that baptism is not only a personal issue, but an issue of the family. Since baptism is not salvific but a symbol of dedication to Christ, they advocate that children raised in Christian homes be baptized into the Christian church as full members as soon as possible and be supported by the church and its membership as fellow members of faith. 

Those who have been taught a believer's baptism, such as I was taught and given, tend to balk at this idea. What happens to being baptized on your own confession of faith? Is that not what we are taught? While this is a common phrase, it is not in scripture. Indeed, we have more scripture supporting a Catholic Sacrament view (Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, 1 Peter 3:21) than one that excludes infant baptism. Although I personally cannot reconcile the Catholic view of Sacramental baptism for salvation, I find that I do not disagree with the concept of baptizing the household of a believer. 

We have stressed the personal aspect of salvation so much in our generation that we forget we are a body. We are not independent units, but the singular bride of Christ. Our culture of personal satisfaction and personal achievements and competition have driven us to be so exclusive that we even find that we compete with our spouses in Christianity and spiritual mindedness. We are not God's employees that must compete to stay on the team; we are children. As children, we need to be more open and understanding with our spiritual siblings and see that our way isn't the only way. Can we accept other modes of baptism that are less personally driven and more family and community driven than our own? Should we? 

Of course, that begs the question, what about my son? I have a two year old son who is obviously not baptized. Do I split with five hundred years of tradition and baptize my child? 

Good question. 

Christian Identity

Modern, non-denominational teaching which floods our generation strongly advocates our relationship with Christ as paramount. Our relationship with Christ is vital; however it is not the only part of Christianity that is important. We cannot pick some parts of Christianity and leave the rest. 1 2 In our generation this obsession as let to a problem not unique to our generation. Dr. Harold Brown said it well:

"Instead of stressing personal Christianity, at a certain point much of Pietism began to cultivate the Christian personality, and soon found itself more romantic than Christian." 

Although this quote was about the Pietism movement and not originally about our generation, we find that history does often repeat itself. There are no new thoughts or movements, simply a new generation rehashing the things of previous generations. We see that the same issue has popped up again; we replace relationship with personality. We are drawn to the 'modern, hip, spiritual Christian' personality and it is so much simpler to conform to the standard than personally develop our own faith. This MHS Christian is pretty easy to identify, as they permeate all of social media.

 The ideal modern, hip, spiritual personality consists of:

-Strong Conservative or neoConservative views
-A stance against modern, conventional medicine
-A healthy condemnation of denominational beliefs as merely divisive
-Country house with a large yard
-An entrepreneurial hobby, usually involving woodworking or whole foods
-A beard obsession
-A natural health regimen
-Several children, all kept at home

This is what a good, modern Christian is supposed to look like. Its more romantic, a more desirable form of faith. Solid doctrine, opinions on complex theology, and a stance on denominational views are looked at with suspicion and concern. Rather than stressing a thorough education or critical review, the focus is on relational issues. The strength of a church is now measured in the extroverted charisma and popularity of the pastor, combined with a photogenic face.

We find these personalities usually have the gift of gab; that is they can speak for long periods of time sounding very spiritual without actually teaching or exhorting their listeners with any concrete beliefs or mandates. They delight in pleonastic speech, unarticulated faith, and vague vision statements that leave everything to the imagination. They take every opportunity to speak, without saying anything. Most importantly, they don't take a stance on difficult doctrine; in fact, they condemn those 'divisive' churches that have such doctrines. They are easy on the ears, supremely motivational, and demolish straw men with confidence.

We find ourselves enamored with the personality of these leaders, not the teaching thereof. We would rather follow the personality; its fun, its easier, and preprepared. It doesn't require discernment, just duplication. These are easy men to emulate, and we feel good doing so. We find that as we do that, we automatically fit in with all the rest of our peers that are duplicating the exact same thing. We have a pre-made clique, it is comfortable and safe. Of course our neighbors agree, they are copying the same master plan.

Was there anything inherently wrong with any of the traits I described? No, but when we replace substance with personality there is no personality that can take the place of substance.

Like everything in life, the easy route isn't really the best route. Most of the prerequisites we have created for a good modern Christian aren't even Christlike goals or have a blessed thing to do with Christianity. They are comfortable goals of our own generation and socio-economic class. We should not mistake our desires and whims with God's. Our nationality, patriotism, economic plans, or political views should not be valued the same way our faith is. We can't worship a God we create in our own image. If we fancy God to be an upper middle class Conservative gun-toting, Republican-voting, coffee drinking, bearded Confederate, we have created our own God. The ego we display by assuming God needs to approve our lifestyle rather than tailoring our lifestyle to Him is flabbergasting. There is no wrong in having a beard, artisan coffee, or gluten-free bread. There is great wrong in merging these things into our faith.

We are creating a new generation of non-traditionalists. We reject the traditions of the 'old' church; its teachings, practices, and style, yet we are creating equally preposterous standards; more so, since many of our new standards of Christianity have nothing to do with Christ. In fact, we find that much of this generation is labeling itself 'non-denominational', as if that were possible. Having no opinion on doctrine is in itself a doctrine, and we find that most 'non-denominationalists' really do have personal doctrine, they merely don't understand the terminology and implications of that belief. The culture of ignorance is valued as greater than knowledge because we have equated ignorance with humility and knowledge with pride. This will cause the church great harm as difficult situations arise and the church has no cohesive way to approach it. The personalities will fail us, as they are silent on the difficult parts of life. All the coffee, nonGMO foods, and natural sugars won't have an answer. We must stand up and be followers of Christ, to know what we believe and take the hard road. Doctrine may not be easy, but the church needs it; it is a vital component of a healthy church.

Removed from the Body

In the book of Luke, our Lord tells us a story about a well-educated, well to do man of the church. He thanks God for all His blessings and for his fortune in life. The prayer sounds very familiar, even holy, if you don't pay much attention. But God is not pleased.

We live in an age where this style of Christianity is not only accepted, but exalted. Being proud of our superiority over our unenlightened neighbors is normal. Removing ourselves and our families from those around us because of our superior Christianity is seen as the expected way to raise our children and lead our families. We look at those in the church with us, as this Pharisee did and we thank God we aren't them. We remove ourselves from their presence and stand alone, proud of our Christianity,  our conservative way of life, our knowledge, our wisdom and our humility. We isolate ourselves from the regular Christian rabble and pat ourselves on the back about how much God has blessed us. We thank God we aren't one of 'those people' and avoid those people as much as possible.

This form of worshipping our own selves is one of the most destructive to the church. It corrupts it from the inside, causing pain and suffering to all the members of the body we cut ourselves off from. It destroys the witness of the community of believers and harms the growth of those who are still growing in the faith. It teaches our children that God has 'good children' and 'bad children' and that they should avoid these lesser Christians.

Some of the first red flags of this Pharisee's prayer are the isolationism. He stands alone, proud of his way of life. He equates his lifestyle with God's favor, and assumes those who are different are less Godly. He praises God, not for God's sake, but for his own; his praise is not of God at all but really praise of his own standing.

This prayer, and the lifestyle therein, is all too common today as well. We assume that our comfortable Conservative Evangelical lifestyle is the hand of God blessing us because we are so great. We avoid and distain those who are different, keeping our selves and our families from the worldly influence of anything that isn't exactly our own ideology.

Instead, we should do as the publican, admit we are nothing before God. Our lifestyle - liberal, conservative, urban, rural - none of these will impress God. We need to remember we are not any better than the people around us, and treat them accordingly. Isolation in the Christian faith is dangerous: We are called to be one body; not many. As soon as we avoid parts of the body that we find less spiritual than ourselves, we fall for the same trap this Pharisee did. We become trapped by our own spiritualness, instead of God's grace. We become of the world, but not in it. We avoid being 'in the world' because it is less spiritual than we are, yet we strive for the same material comfort and prestige as the world around us, showing we are just as much of the world as our neighbor. Instead, we should value our neighbor more, and value our own comforts and position less.