Roots

Uncovering Why We Do What We Do in Church

Dyron Daughrity

• Publisher: Leafwood Publishers
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780891126010
• Topic: Teologia e religione
• Subtopic: Storia del cristianesimo

By uncovering "why we do what we do in church, " Christians can make more informed decisions about where they should take their churches in the future.Why do we do what we do in church? Roots answers that question. Readers will discover for themselves the history of seven important topics that are at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian.• Bible: Who decided on what the Bible should include?
• Baptism: Why do some baptize infants and others baptize believers?
• Eucharist: How did a "supper" turn into a tiny wafer and a sip of juice?
• Church buildings: How did we get from meeting in homes to attending megachurch arenas
• Pastors: How did church leadership become so professionalized and hierarchical?
• Sermons: How did we get from "Love thy neighbor" to a 30-minute rhetorical performance?
• Church Music: Early Christians chanted Psalms, but now we have Chris Tomlin. Why?Every Christian needs to know these things... and decide what they believe.

Chapter 1

The Bible
Our Primary Source

Francis Chan asks a question that surely nettled some of the Christians who first heard it.

Think about it. If all you had was the Bible, would you come to the conclusion—after reading this—that to become a Christian you would pray a prayer and ask Jesus to come into your heart? I know I am totally stepping on some toes right now. I’m just asking: Is that really what you find in here? Or if you only had the Bible, would you come out thinking, “You know, I need to repent, be baptized, be filled with the Holy Spirit”? What would you believe if it were just the Bible?¹

Chan challenges his viewers to rely solely on the Bible, resisting the temptation to be spoon-fed teachings that have no roots in the biblical text. He argues that if we rely solely on the Bible, we would probably have to transform much of what we believe. He draws a major distinction between what is “fed” to us by others and what actually comes from the Word of God. He urges his listeners to be discerning and to realize that all of us have inherited some unbiblical baggage. He concludes by challenging his viewers “to test everything we hear and see if it’s really in this book.”

By all accounts, Francis Chan is a deeply committed disciple of Jesus Christ. He is bold in his faith, unabashedly countering what he believes to be bad Christian teaching. He is a unique leader who commands respect because of his deep integrity.

But how can the average Christian possibly know exactly what the Bible says on issues such as Sunday School, church services, music, leadership, church architecture, creeds, communion, sermons, testimonies, speaking in tongues, weddings, funerals, and filing lawsuits against each other? Does the Bible address all of this? Is there any room for interpretation? Should each Christian determine the answers to these questions all on his or her own? By allowing ourselves to be taught—or, in Chan’s words, “fed”—by a teacher, are we succumbing to the mistake of not thinking for ourselves?

Here I Stand: Why Catholics and Protestants Differ on So Much

Catholics and Protestants are very, very different in fundamental ways. I have a good friend who is a devout Catholic, and he says that the cardinal virtue in Catholicism is that each person must “obey.” At the end of the day, no matter what they might think deep in the corners of their minds, Catholics should submit to official church teaching. This is what it means to be Catholic. One submits to the authority of someone else—including one’s interpretation of the Bible. This might sound a bit hyperbolic, but the truth of the matter is that Catholics who push the boundaries too far risk censure. They certainly don’t have the liberty to start another Catholic congregation down the street, as Protestants often do.

Protestants, however, are experts at protesting. That is precisely why we are called Protestants. Each of us looks (or is supposed to look) deep into the pages of the Bible and figures things out for himself. And if we find that the preacher is saying something we disagree with, we feel compelled to “protest.” We can blame it on Luther. He’s the one who started this way of thinking. In his famous speech at the Diet of Worms in 1521, Luther defied the massive and powerful institution of the Roman Catholic Church with these words:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.²

The earliest printed version of the speech claimed Luther actually stated, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.” Those words—“Here I stand”—are iconic for all Protestants. By confronting authority when we feel authority is in the wrong, we follow Luther’s lead. We refuse to submit. We follow our conscience which has been shaped by Scripture and, what he calls “plain reason.” And we stand. We take a stand.

Is this the genius of Protestantism, or is it a perpetual failing? It depends on how we define success and failure. There are estimated to be thousands of Protestant movements and denominations in the world. Even tens of thousands.³ And Roman Catholic Churches? There’s still only one. Certainly submission to authority prevents division in the body of Christ, but at what cost? Can the Popes and councils be trusted to make the decisions for us? Obviously Luther thought not.

Clearly, Francis Chan thinks not. Chan’s approach to Scripture is precisely the same approach adopted by Luther: sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The safest path for Christians to take is to make their decisions using “Scripture and plain reason.”

There is an obvious problem, however. How could so many people come to different conclusions by using “plain reason” and “Scripture alone?”

Answer? There is no such thing as plain reason.

Indeed, Scripture is basically the same. Yes, we have different versions of the Bible, and that does account for some of the differences. The big problem, however, is that we think differently. Each person comes to the table of discussion with a different background. Different preachers and teachers. Different families. Different experiences. Totally different track records.

And what happens when we broaden the conversation to those from other cultures? Chances are slim that a Protestant from Indonesia is going to think the same way as a Catholic from Texas. Culturally they are worlds apart. Who has the “plainest” reason, the Texan or the Indonesian? The problem is that reason differs from human to human. Every person reads the Bible a little differently from anybody else, each based on their accumulated experience.

Ultimate Authority: Tradition or Text?

As an Evangelical Christian, I read two texts with regularity: the Bible and Christianity Today. CT—as it is often known—published an article by Mark Galli in 2015 entitled “Why We Need the New Battle for the Bible: It’s Time to Turn to Scripture as Our Final Authority.”⁴ I can freely admit that I agree entirely with the author’s arguments as I understand them. Galli argues that we neglect the authority of Scripture for several reasons.

1. Sometimes we wish to preserve relationships rather than to obey the Bible.
2. Sometimes we feel the Lord is “leading us” a certain way that might conflict with Scripture.
3. Sometimes a “consensus” arises among Christians that contradicts the rather clear teaching of the Bible.
4. Sometimes the Bible is explained away as figurative, allegorical, or metaphorical (“Jesus rose from the grave only in spirit”).
5. Sometimes we dismiss the Bible as being obsolete. It’s an old book!
6. Sometimes we feel “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing!” Thus the traditional teachings of the Bible must be jettisoned.
7. Sometimes we individualize the Scriptures; arguing “what it means to me” might be very different than what it says, at least ostensibly.

An Evangelical might think of this list as “The Seven Deadly Sins of Biblical Interpretation.”

Deadly? Perhaps that’s overstating it. But as one who takes Scripture seriously, even literally most of the time, this list offers me a sobering perspective. The Bible is pretty lucid. What did Paul mean when he pointed out that some were being “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29)? I have no idea. That passage is not lucid. I had to write a huge paper on it in grad school, and I still don’t know what it means. But, for the most part, it would be disingenuous to argue that the Bible is altogether cloudy, difficult, impenetrable. When I began to turn to the Bible for answers for why my life was falling apart at the age of eighteen, I found it to be quite clear.

In seminary, we have to wrestle with questions such as, “Do the church fathers stand in authority over the Bible since they are the ones who compiled the canon of Scripture?” Nonsense. That’s like asking if Adam had authority over God because he realized it was God who made him. The church fathers don’t stand in authority over the Bible. They certainly did their part to discern which of the biblical texts were authentic, written by apostles, and inspired. But they didn’t have authority over the Bible, or God, or the church, or the Christians seventeen hundred years later, as some of my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters seem to argue (sorry, friends, we can debate this next time we get together).

The church fathers deserve our utmost respect, much as the esteemed, seasoned elders, pastors, and teachers of today do (think Billy Graham, Pope Francis, or Rick Warren). We respect them because they live the faith. They teach it. They invest themselves into it. Only a fool would disparage a wise church leader. However, that does not mean that the church fathers, pastors, elders, or teachers are infallible. They are not (sorry, Catholic friends . . . and, by the way, please repeal Vatican I), at least according to my reading of Romans 3.

So which is it?

#1. Is Scripture a revelation by God that was declared authoritative by the church fathers?

Or,

#2. Is it an already authoritative revelation by God that the church fathers happened to recognize?

I go with option #2.

Why? Because I believe it is important to realize that the earliest writings in our canon—probably Paul’s letters—were already being called “Scripture” during the time when the New Testament was still being written. The author of 2 Peter—whoever it was—refers to Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 3:16. The “church fathers” had little to do with that recognition. Paul’s authority was already being recognized in his own lifetime, if we are to trust the New Testament documents. It wasn’t up to the church fathers of the fourth, third, or even second century to stamp his writings with the “seal of authority.” Rather, they were considered authoritative when they were written. The church fathers were simply echoing a tradition that had already recognized Paul as the crucial figure that he was.

Yes, there are some vexing problems with our canon of Scripture today. Where are the other two letters to the Corinthians that were written by Paul?⁵ Alas, they have never been found. What if we found them? (Dan Brown, take note!) Why don’t we revere those apocryphal texts—the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses—cited by Jude?⁶ Where is the Epistle to the Laodiceans that Paul brings up in Colossians 4:16? What about the Gospel of Thomas, that shares so much material—much of it word-for-word—with our canonical Gospels? What exactly is Paul referring to in Acts 20:35 when he quotes the apparently well-known words of Jesus, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” that are not cited in the canonical Gospels? How did so many additions get into our text—the woman caught in adultery (John 8), the striking passage on the Trinity in 1 John 5:8, (skip to the next paragraph if you are a snake handler in Appalachia) and the long ending of Mark?⁷

As Christians who ascribe full authority to the Scriptures, we believe our canon is sufficient for helping a person to achieve salvation. Perfect? No. God is perfect. The Bible, while inspired, has so much man in it that it can’t be perfect. However, it can guide us to perfection—to our God. How else could God have relayed his will to us, except by using human beings? Should he have spoken to us through an ass? Well, um, he did that too (see Numbers 22), but my point is this: How else was God to communicate his will to humankind but to use humans?

As those who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures to convey salvation, we believe that these earliest sources—the biblical texts—are true and inspired by God, regardless of what may have happened at the church councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. Would the Scriptures still be authoritative had the church fathers never existed? Obviously, as pointed out, long before the church fathers they already were considered authoritative. The church fathers did a tremendous service by sorting out the wheat (inspired texts) from the chaff (crazy stuff like th...