An attorney left a comment on my earlier post re trivializing God that I felt deserved its own post in response. I’ve removed his last name to grant him some relative anonymity, even though he eschews this. He can comment again and leave it again if he desires.

I read his comments a couple of times, trying to tease out the tone, intent, or (especially) main point of what he said. Upon my first, cursory reading of his comments I found myself agreeing with him and assumed he was agreeing with me; when I hit the last paragraph, however, I knew I had to re-read his comments carefully.

You can read the comment in its entirety at the above link, but I’ll reproduce it here and make some comments of my own. I have not changed anything other than to remove his last name. Derek wrote:

Let me do something profoundly dangerous: I admit to being one who regularly demonstrates his hubris in commenting on matters theological –excuse me–”impressions of God.” And just as “fools names are like their faces, always seen in public places”, I exhibit this hubris sans anonymity on various blogsites that “dangerously” self-proclaim their Christian witness.

The phrase “something profoundly dangerous” is a not-so-subtle mocking or scornful reference to what I wrote about a friend’s comment to me. I said - and still say - that it is dangerous to believe that my opinion is as good as the next person’s even though they’ve got specialized training in the biblical languages and the study of the Scriptures. Derek is an attorney and (I assume) a competent one. What, I wonder, does he think of people with no training in law or the legal system defending themselves on serious charges? Would he argue that an amateur - albeit Christian - attorney is just as competent and qualified as he? Probably not.

I am not a veterinarian so I don’t propose to spay you; I am an attorney so let me just “sue” for your attention.

Derek is an attorney and, it would appear, an amateur comedian. Not bad but don’t quit your . . .

You may “opt out” of the generalities I intend to lay out, only wearing the shoe if it fits. I choose to lay the shoes out here only because you brought up the subject matter of “theological” expertise, and whether it exists outside of the “pastor’s union.”

The matter of the shoe fitting is irrelevant; the question is whether the shoe matches or not. I re-read my post - yes, I found it a bit tedious, too - but couldn’t find anywhere that I said that theological expertise could not reside outside the “pastor’s union” (his phrase, not mine). Being the cynic realist that I am, I would argue that it’s only rarely found among seminary graduates!

My post was not about people not being entitled to an opinion; my post was about not being dogmatic or unteachable. I did not say, in fact, whether my veterinarian friend was right or wrong; I commented on his certainty and rigidity. I’m glad Chet the Vet thinks about such things; I only wish he would be willing to think a little more about them. We want answers, conclusion, settled doctrines; we avoid things that upset us, disagree with us, or rattle our cages. But we need to have our cages rattled.

I have been around and known as many pastors in my life as anybody my age who is not themselves part of the “union.” And as you might expect – based on your own personal experience with attorneys or vets – there are good pastor/theologians and bad ones and lots of mediocre ones in between.

Absolutely true, and what makes a good pastor-teacher is his openness to being taught. The bad ones have the answers, or so they think.

I do not pretend to be the theologian that Barth was or the exegete or theologian that you are.[1] But what I do know – and perhaps your vet friend knows too – is that the Bible isn’t nearly as arcane as many of you “pros” make it out to be.[2] Nor is the law as complex as many of us attorneys create it to be.[3] And there is the key: the complexity is mans’ “gift” to the project of knowing God. His is the Mystery; our’s the complexity.[4] THE LAW and GOSPEL is only foolishness to the Greeks. Believers “get it.” Believers “get it” and not primarily because we have theologians, but because we have the illumination of the Holy Spirit.[5] Can He and does He use theologians? YES and Praise God! But . . . professional “Levites” while they often aid in the effort to understand can as often “complexify” it.[6]

There is a lot to respond to in the above quote, so please bear with me as I indulge in a bit of narcissistic froth. I numbered his quote to correspond to the following comments.

    [1] Barth was remarkable and perhaps the most prolific - if not profound - theologian of the last century. Few were his equal and certainly I am not. I am also not an exegete - I have never claimed this and would never claim it - although I am a theologian. In fact, we’re all theologians since we all have some knowledge of God. The question is how good a theologian we are, i.e., how truly we are representing God.

    [2] I don’t believe I ever said or implied that the Bible is arcane. It is not, even though Paul does speak of “mysteries.” I would explain that, but I’m sure Derek knows what Paul means by the term and an explanation would be condescending and rude. My point is that the Bible can be difficult at times and requires careful study. More on that in a minute.

    [3] I’m sure this is an attempt at humility, but I don’t for a minute think that the law - especially tax laws or corporate laws - are simple enough for the untrained person to understand. Sorry, but I don’t buy it.

    [4] Is Derek suggesting that God is not complex? I agree that there is mystery - profound mystery - concerning the Person and activities of God, but I would argue as well that it is not as simple as Derek would have us believe.

    For example (since I’ve been studying Romans 6-8 recently), what is the identity of the person in Rom 7:14-25? Derek says it is simple and that we have made it complex. If it is so simple, why has the church been debating this since the 3rd century on? Is Paul talking about a nonbeliever? An immature believer? A mature believer? A believer who attempts to keep the Law via her new nature? How does this conflict compare with the one in Gal 5? Is it the same battle or is it different? You might say I’m making this complex; I might ask you, if it’s so simple, why all the different views?

    [5] If believers “get it” solely due to the presence of the Holy Spirit, then why so many denominations and disagreements about things? Did the Holy Spirit tell James Arminius one thing and the Arminians another? (Arminius, of course, died a Reformed theologian.) Why so many different opinions on such simple (as Derek maintains) things? Is the Holy Spirit incapable of convincing us of these basic truths? Do I contribute nothing? If it is all the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating me, why can’t I read Hebrew?

    [6] The term “Levites” refers to a tribe from which the Old Testament priests were taken; perhaps Derek meant “scribes” or “lawyers,” since they were the experts in the Law in the New Testament. The priests officiated at the Temple; the scribes and lawyers interpreted the Law. Apparently Derek didn’t “get it” in this instance. But maybe I’ve just “complexified” it.

No believing vet or lawyer is going to spend time contemplating whether or not God has a navel and if so how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while contemplating it. (Yes: I’m aware that is hyperbole.) Those are seminary exercises the fall-out of which is too often detachment from the “real presence” of the Living God, a detachment that spills out from the pulpit – where such things are still in fashion – well beyond the first tier of pews – where those are still in use.

Actually, the big debate in every seminary is not whether God has a navel or not; it is over whether Adam had one or not.

But - and excuse me a moment while I draw my sword - Derek’s comment is an insult to the men and women who have devoted their lives to teaching in seminaries and Christian colleges. To think that they spend their time pursuing ridiculous, trivial matters reveals a degree of ignorance - or meanness - on Derek’s part that cannot be left unaddressed. I would maintain that the professors I had in seminary - or the ones in most conservative Christian institutions - have committed their lives to pursuing a true knowledge of the God that Derek professes to know so intimately in his spare time. His statement is as stupid as it is arrogant, and where I initially thought it was hubris on his part (which he sarcastically admits) I now believe it is animus instead. Whatever his personal experience of God has produced in his life, it has not generated so much as a shred of humility. At least not in this slander of hundreds of brothers and sisters in Christ.

(If I am correct in my assumption that Derek is angry, it will help to explain the disorganized, at-time random nature of his comment. If I’m wrong, then Derek’s just disorganized and random for no apparent reason.)

Would that you “theologians” stuck to your “impressions of God” and kept your therapeutic impressons of man to yourselves. There is way too much therapy and way too little theology being absorbed and passed on by the seminary levites these days. And because so much of what passes for His Word is little more than your word, it should neither surprise you or anger you that vets and attorneys and moms and pops know themselves to be as qualified as you to discuss and understand His Word or your latest “homily.” If pastors would get out of their own words and into His Word perhaps the number of times you find attorneys or vets claiming equal understanding with you will diminish. “It is My Father’s World.” Not Freud’s; not Maslow’s; not Bultmann or Barth’s; not even Dr. Phil’s.

Again with the “levites.”

What this rant has to do with anything in my post escapes me entirely. Who was talking about therapy? Or Bultmann? Or Freud? This off-topic tirade leads me to believe that Derek is just another self-inflated, self-impressed critic of the church who now, under the banner of the emergent church movement, can roll around like a loose cannon wherever he finds himself.

“Therapeutic impressions of man”? Psychology was, up until the time of Freud, primarily under the aegis of theology. The true experts in anthropology/psychology are those who understand man biblically. And, as far as the “therapeutic” messages being offered up on Sunday mornings, you will find few others who are more opposed to the psychologizing of the church than I. I have written about the inherent dangers of elevating non-theologically trained psychologists to the position of high priests in the church and bowing before their psychological absurdities as though they spoke as a god and not a man. So take your whining somewhere else: you’re preaching to the choir.

Okay, Mike: now have at it.”

Your Brother in Christ,
Derek

No thanks.

Your Brother in Christ,
Mike


2 Cor 1.13