Thus far we have discussed the need to read works that are at variance with our own theological perspective. We’ve discussed why it is necessary in our first post and now we continue on to consider the dangers of reading bad theology and the grace required.
2) Reading error can be dangerous.
When reading bad theology there can be a danger that inadequate knowledge of the issues could lead one into error. Unfortunately this is a common occurrence with theological students who become enamored with writers who blur the lines and mix error with truth. They sound good, they sound biblical, they sound convincing, but by accepting their premises one can be brought down a bad path. A case in point is observed in the writings of Karl Barth. A superficial reading of Barth can be dangerous because much of what he says sounds orthodox at first blush. Barth railed against his liberal past in strong terms that resonate with evangelicals. He reappropriated the church fathers, Anselm, Calvin and Luther, making them acceptable sources for theology in the academy. Many of his statements on the incarnation, knowing God, and salvation sound convincing. Yet Barth’s Christology is dangerous, even open to the charge of Eutycheanism, his method of knowing God has been understood by many as leading to fideism and his views of salvation have been accused of universalism. If we get taken in by the language without doing the hard work of finding out what is actually being said, we could unwittingly teach error ourselves.
To avoid this danger there are a number of safe-guards that can be taken. Of course, the most important are found in the regular spiritual disciplines of worship, bible-reading and prayer. Just as we can determine counterfeit currency by comparing it with the real thing, so too can we determine counterfeit theology, with the Spirit`s help, by weighing it against Scripture. The better we know our bibles, the easier it will be to pick-up on error.
Wide reading is another safeguard. Too often we satisfy ourselves with a narrow and shallow understanding of our subject. In the case of Barth, there has been a lot written on him, thus there are great articles and books that will alert us to some of his problems (as well as showing where Barth is helpful). One thinks of Cornelius Van Til`s Christianity and Barthianism, or the more recent collaboration Engaging With Barth. The more we can read, whether favorable towards or critical of our subject, the better we will be able to read the primary sources.
Find good mentors and ask them questions. This requires humility and the recognition that you don’t know everything there is to know about all areas of theology (or whatever discipline you are studying). An ideal candidate is one who has gone through the rigors of academic study, who is orthodox theologically, who is fair to whatever text they are reading, and who can sharply determine where you are at in your own understanding as to be able to carry you along to greater heights.
3) Reading error requires grace.
Once we have made our way through a work that we disagree with, how should we respond? First of all, as we argued above, reading the primary material is charitable. Instead of dealing only in second-hand resources, an honest answer to challenges based upon an evenhanded reading will cause no offense to the one being challenged. How would you respond to some one who challenged you by saying, “So and so says that you deny the Trinity,” yet your interlocutor has no idea that you actually believe the Trinity is as orthodox as the sky is blue. The so-called Golden Rule applies to those whom we read as well as to our face-to-face encounters. We do not have the right to misrepresent a person`s thought, even if we will never meet them in person.
The best way to answer respond to erroneous teaching is to deal with the best of a person`s arguments, not the worst. Sometimes it can be easy to take an outlandish statement and punch holes through it. Little work is required and the desired effect of repulsion can easily be acquired. Rather, consider the strong-points, deal with them honestly, and it may be that the opponent is convinced by your godly response, but others reading your work may be drawn to your position. If you fail to do this, others will see and it will be easy fo rthem to dismiss both you and your argument because of your lack of charity.
One caveat is required at this point. There are times that strong language may be required when responding to false-teaching. Jesus made use of it and so did Paul when they responded to the Pharisees and Judaizers. Think of Jesus calling his opponents white-washed tombs, or Paul telling the `circumcision part“dogs.`This is not light-hearted jesting, but rather are words meant to convey to others the seriousness of the error being espoused. It takes wisdom, but there are times when error needs to be pointed out and lambasted because it is too dangerous to let it go any further. But please note, this does not give one license to attack a person just for the sake of it. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, and great care must be given not to speak venomously as a means of releasing aggression. Only where souls are at stake should such strong language be used.
Although this has been a short series that basically consisted of some loosely connected thoughts, my hope is that readers will be spurred on to greater critical thinking seasoned with grace. If all of us are to challenge unbelief in a way that honours God and seeks to win the lost, may these simple steps be an encouragement.
