TheologyExchange.com

First let me say that the structure of Christianity is one that is based on exclusivity. Exclusivity comes from the idea of shutting out other considerations, or better defined as excluding all but what is specified. The position of exclusivity is one that is radical and leaves no room to be negotiated.

In Christianity a foundational position is that no other religion or belief structure is true other than what has been centered on the person of Jesus the Christ. Take a look at these statements made by Jesus: “I am the bread which came down from heaven”; “I am the bread of life”; “I am from him, and he hath sent me”; “I am the light of the world”; “I am from above”; “I proceedeth forth and came from God”; “I am the door”; “I give unto them eternal life”; “I and my Father are one”; “I am the resurrection and the life”; “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”. Notice the focus on the “I” found throughout these statements. In just these few statements, Jesus was establishing the exclusivity for eternal life to be found only in the Christian faith. He is the only way to eternal life. All other ways are excluded and this is exclusivity.

Now, tolerance comes from the idea of recognizing and respecting others beliefs and practices without sharing them. There are many religions in the world that have established their own systems of beliefs and practices, and in religious tolerance, we are asked to recognized and respect each one. However, the Christian faith presents an exclusive position. What tolerance can be found between darkness and light, life and death, or salvation and condemnation. The principles of Christianity separate our beliefs and practices to direct contradictions found in all other religious systems. However, it is love and not tolerance that the Christian has been told to reflect. We are told to love our neighbors. This is to be accomplished without compromising our beliefs.

Can Christianity co-exist with other religious beliefs? Of course. We do so everyday. We are instructed to do so in love. However, in Christianity there is not an equality shared with other belief systems. We do not compromise truth. The fact is that there is only one way and all others lead down the path of condemnation. We do not compromise for the sake of unity, but show compassion through love for the masses that have erred in choosing a path that is not centered on Jesus, the Son of God. All roads do not lead to God.

There is no doubt that we live in a world in turmoil. Our society proceeds forward with very little knowledge and understanding of the issues that affect, or will affect, the nations as we see them. It is not my intention to enter into a debate as to why the world has chosen the paths that it has. Neither is it to judge our national leaders and their capabilities.

However, there is a question that does need addressing and that does require some sense of accountability. That question is, ‘Where is the Church today?.’ I do not speak about the 10 different church buildings found on the same street in our towns. Nor do I speak of the numerous choices among denominations to fit everyone’s personality and method of Christian service.

I speak of the Church that was founded by, and who’s cornerstone is, our Lord Jesus Christ. That body of  believers that represents His bride. I speak of that Church that stands on Biblical principles and refuses, at all costs, to compromise its Christian morals and beliefs. That Church that charges forward to present the Kingdom of God, not as one denomination, but as one body. That one that suffers when any part of its body is suffering. The one that stands boldly in the face of opposition and as Peter said to the leaders of his time, “You decide what God would want. Should we obey you or God? We cannot keep quite. We must speak about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20 NCV). Peter continued by answering to the command to be silent by declaring, “We must obey God, not human authority!” (Acts 5:29 NCV).

It is evident that the Church has lost its unity and has been for the most part silenced. Take a look at the statistics alone in the United States. This is a nation that according to a 2007 Pew Research Center Survey, proclaims to be 78.5% Christian (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States). I do not know what definition many may have as to what constitutes a majority, but a minimum 51% should be enough to turn the tides to create change. Why is it then that the Church has been silenced and limited by an obvious minority?

Jesus said that we are the light of the world in Matthew 5:14. He goes on to say in verse 16, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” In other words, we have not been called to grow dim and hide in the shadows, but have been called to ‘shine’ in a way that it be seeing by ALL men. When Jesus declares in verse 14, “A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden”, He was not referring to any place of governance but to His Church.

Have we allowed our light to grow dim? Just look around and honestly ask yourself, what impact has the Church made in the world in the last 25 years? In all truth, the last 35 – 40 years have represented a large shift in morality and what is acceptable for the sake of a so-called tolerance. Again, keep in mind that self-proclaim Christians hold a 78.2% majority in the United States alone.

Who’s to blame and who is at fault? Where is that city that should be set on a hill? Where is that new Jerusalem composed of believers from all Christian groups? To be dim is to compromise the light with darkness. Has the Church compromise for the sake of complacency and funding?

This is the age of information. Never in history has so much information been shared in such a short period of time. This primarily due to the introduction of the internet. Today websites abound in the search engines touching on every subject found in Christianity. What was once limited by demographics and time restraints, is now open to an entire world.

This is a far cry from the times of past theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Zwingly, Arminius or Calvin. Yet still today, we study the writings of these theologians and for the most part, reference their teachings in the foundations of our doctrinal beliefs. These, and for that matter, theologians of the beginning of the past century, did not benefit from an information system as is provided to us through this technological age. Their studies into any subject or topic of the Christian faith would have required many months if not years to complete. Keep in mind that these did not benefit from our Google or Yahoo search engines. Each point had to be dissected through a manual search of archives and a constant dedication to prayer for clarification.

Roger E. Olson, in The Story of Christian Theology, explains the differences in levels of importance found in Christian beliefs. He goes on to explain the differences between dogmas [worth serious and even heated defense, such as for the Trinity and incarnation], doctrines [considered essential to the Christian in their groups, such as part of their particular tradition, denomination, or church], and theological opinions or individual interpretations [matters of indifference 'adiaphora', for example details of belief about the exact nature of angels and about the details of events surrounding the second coming of Christ].

It is here where the distinctions of traditional theology must take place. What has been handed down as dogmas normally stay within the foundation of every system of belief in time. It is the responsibility of all theologian today to safeguard those traditional theologies that represent our dogmas [that which is certain]. Doctrines are developmental based on the specific inclinations of a group with regards to their traditions. It is the responsibility of the individual theologian in their specific groups to present and uphold the doctrines that form part of the core teachings of that specific group. However, the individual theologian must accept that other groups exist with their one particular doctrines which may differ from their own. Theological Opinions are ever changing based on the times and the interpreter’s point of view. It is the responsibility of all theologians to understand the limits of their own Theological Opinions as a matter of choice in an inconclusive topic.

Today we have at our fingertips the ability to isolate within seconds information through the web on any specific topic. Yet we continue to rely on the teachings of these theological laborers to anchor our system of beliefs. We use their writings for teaching the principles of Christianity today in our classrooms and churches. We seek to present a stamp of approval in our discussions by quoting their work. We establish relevance to our lectures in the sole mention of their names.

Yet differences existed then as they do today between this theologians. Their viewpoints where as diversified as well. They sought to present their positions and argue for the right to discern Scripture in light of new understanding or interpretation of the application of the text. The theologians of those past times experienced persecution from the structured church in their specific age, if they deviated in anyway from a consensus viewpoint and teaching.

Today we have branched out into a great number of schools of thought in the various subjects of theology. We have even tolerated the introduction of a new postmodern theology, seeking to fit into relevance a culture and society that finds itself worlds apart from the culture and society of those ancient times. This is not totally a bad idea until we stop utilizing the Scriptures as the instrument of reference and solely begin the structure of our new theology through a sole connection with the writings of theologians that stand on our side of the aisle, not differentiating between what are dogmas, what are doctrines, and what are theological opinions.

We must study and return to the building of theology in the same manner as those that positioned all matters of the faith based on the text of the Scriptures. This is what has stood against the test of time to make the writings of those theologians of the past centuries, foundational to the dogmatic positions today. We can agree to disagree on the interpretation of a Biblical text. However, positions that are presented based on the ideologies of those that have drifted away from the Scriptural reference, itself carries very little weight and should have no influence in dogmatic theological issues.

So, being careful to maintain the Scriptures as centered in the foundation of our theological arguments and categorizing the issue into one of three positions [dogma, doctrine, and theological opinion], we can truly see the impact that traditional theology [whether accepted or dismissed as irrelevant by the Church] has done on today’s modern Christian worldview.