This one is for those who followed the link from the previous post.
There are a lot of people who think that if they can deconstruct a church leader's theology they have done the work necessary to challenge what they consider to be problems in the church leader's movement. If you don't like preacher X then you may convince yourself that if you take down every major theological plank in his/her platform you have shown that he is in error. This is both naive and untrue. Let me rephrase things in a way that will, I hope, make this clearer.
When Nathan confronted King David about a problem he didn't come to question David's theology of kingly rule or try to come up with some theological argument that there shouldn't even be a king. Nathan didn't try to do that or articulate a theology that could be used to tell people in Israel to ignore David. What did he do? He said to David "You are the man."
I have seen more than a few self-appointed would-be Nathan's on the subject of a particular church leader and without fail they have tended to presume their Nathan-ish role. But they fail to ever do what Nathan actually did, which is to articulate "you are the man". First of all they don't have any relational context in which to have enough of David's trust or shared life to say anything to begin with. Now it is true that in certain cases the David makes a point of not being vulnerable enough to ever even have a Nathan in his life. Just roll with me on this illustration, okay? The myriad points of minutiae can wait for another time.
Then they fool themselves into thinking if they can debunk the talking points of the theology of a leader they have done a great and glorious service to Christians everywhere. They haven't. They have propped up their own agenda contra that of another Christian. There's a time and a place for that, to be sure, but it is not going to get anything done. Once the subject is theological differences those who are the heads of their respective tribes already know there's nothing really at stake. We already differ on theology and that explains everything.
See how useless that ends up being? If an Arminian is criticized by a Calvinist? So what? If a complementarian gets criticized by an egalitarian? So what? In other words the division has already happened across which any criticism is already filtered out due to mutually acknowledge theological differences. A prophet may be outside the formal power structures he or she ends up criticizing but a prophet speaks WITHIN a faith community as a corrective. A lot of would-be self-appointed Nathans and watchbloggers want the luxury of speaking as outsiders about groups and people they look down on. That's not really much of a prophetic role, is it?
This goes triple for folks who don't have a church they regularly attend who attempt to run with the non-institutional thing. Why? Because one of the men these folks try to make a case against himself doesn't like institutions and hopes to avoid becoming leader of a denominational institution that's placing itself above the welfare of individual believers (too late for that now but you can still hope you don't realize it yet). At the risk of overstating my case a blogger who chooses to air concerns about a pastor like Driscoll must air those concerns carefully, clearly, and with an aim to constructively correct. This means not assuming the worst despite a temptation to do so and in some settings immense peer pressure to take one side or the other. If you don't do this then you fall prey to the same egotistical agenda-mongering you're likely to think that other person is always guilty of. You can't just run with the first thing you think is witty or clever.
Besides, as anyone with any connection to certain Christian circles will know, if you're not submitted to the spiritual authority of someone you don't count. End of story before it's begun. Paradoxically in many cases the folks who argue against authoritarianism "may" in some cases be self-appointed prophets of the variety they're trying to make a case against. It makes it tough to make such a case if you're arguing from the same spiritual position as the person you're arguing against.
Lest anyone think I think the Nathan/David analogy is even all that great (it's over-used but I'm using it for reasons I trust will become clear), let's remember Nathan's complicity in the scheme to get Solomon installed on the throne. A Nathan is not above political schemes and conspiracies to advocate for particular things. A would-be Nathan who doesn't remember this is even less likely to play the role of a Nathan. Nathan's great moment was not when he schemed with Bathsheba to get Solomon installed, it was when he was willing to risk death from the wrath of a self-deceived king to point out the truth.
Let's face it, there are plenty of would-be self-appointed Nathan's who are only willing to be Nathan's if they have nothing to lose and something to gain. They want the glory of being a Nathan to a David without any risk. The sad irony of such people is they are in their way as glory-driven as the David they would seek to rebuke. How do you know if you're such a would-be Nathan? It's probably best to assume you are and be cautious about when to speak and what to say. And if you take the role of Nathan for yourself be careful to realize whether or not you're Nathan talking to a David or a Nathan talking to a Saul. We know Nathan had flaws, but just because Nathan had flaws doesn't mean Nathan did not have a moment in which he needed to say something. Just because "you" are not a Nathan doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It doesn't have to be you and if you understood what being a real Nathan to a real David would involve you probably wouldn't want the job as much as you do right now. And if you reall, really don't want it, well, I pray you've got the courage to actually be that Nathan. You just might be the person who should be a Nathan.
And when Nathan's moment came, to reiterate my point, he did not hammer David about his theological problems. He spelled out the problem of what was done in a way that forced David to realize what Nathan was saying, "You are the man". David's problem was not a doctrinal problem but one of his character and specifically his abuse of a God-given office to bring pleasure to himself rather than be a shepherd to Israel. Nathan then had the unenviable task of explaining how, because David abused the power of his office for personal pleasure and gain, the sword would not depart from his house. Though what he did was in secret the disaster that would chasten him would be in public and come from within his own household. David was being told in plain terms that the Lord was going to bring public disaster on him because of wrongs he committed in private. Those words didn't come to pass until some time later, years later.
We know the rest. David was lax in dealing with the incestuous rape of one of his daughters and this unresolved wrong boiled up into Absalom murdering Amnon and fomenting an insurrection. At the risk of asking an obvious question in light of Nathan's service in the royal court ... do you think Nathan wanted to break this remarkably bad news to David? If there needs to be a nathan to David we might fairly ask whether the person who wants that job may be unqualified the job. On the other hand, if out of regard for Israel and the throne a Nathan steps forward and says very uncomfortable things this can be taken, as David understood the confrontation, as a done out of regard for not only the king and Israel but for the Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment