Confrontational Theology
I was talking with a friend last night who is part of Heartland Fellowship. And he was mentioning that his friend, who is part of Heartland too, came from the Mennonite tradition. Both are fantastic people, deeply committed followers of Jesus and invested in Heartland.
He was mentioning that the person from the Mennonite tradition found the Reformed Creeds and Confessions confrontational. And that the Reformed tradition was difficult to understand and accept because of some of the harsh language used to describe people who didn't agree with them (ie. anabaptist). This person, who cherishes their Mennonite tradition, questioned being a part of Heartland because of the CRC attitude towards others. They wondered if joining Heartland meant turning their backs on what they love and grew up with. I understand the difficulty. I went to an anabaptist seminary, yet appreciate Reformed theology.My first reaction after hearing this was I am sure glad they worked through the hard things and the pastor before me was willing to see theology as something that should bring us together, instead of tear us apart. If there wasn't humility and honesty, they wouldn't be a part of Heartland today -- which would be a big loss. This all brings up many questions, like is theology to define ourselves over and against others? Or is theology for bringing people together for discussion and wonder? Or is Theology only apologetics? Any thoughts?
Tags: heartland fellowship, anabaptists
posted by mike vanderkwaak at
8:26 AM
4 Comments:
hey mike
kylie and i have been thinking about this a lot lately. i remember learning in my (CRC) highschool that the catholic church was a cult b/c it fullfilled several of 5 criteria for a cult in our "sociology" textbook. i also remember the damage this did to one of my friendships when i brought it up in university.
in my early university years i was a staunch calvinist. romans 7:14-20, 8:29-30 and half of chapter 9 are all highlighted in my bible. i had almost as many notes and references for refuting armenians scribbled in the back of my bible as i had for debating the ubiquitous mormons at my school.
these days i have taken a step back from such hardline theology. reformed beliefs are based on a very literal and rational interpretation of scripture and i'm not so sure anymore that they tell the whole story. that doesnt mean they arent true, it just means (to me) that they are often beside the point.
my uncle, george vandevelde, is quite involved in today's ecumenical movement. he was mentioning to me last week that there is a push within the CRC to remove the heidelburg catechism's reference to the catholic mass as an "accursed idolatry" (q80?). 10 years ago i would have fought tooth and nail against such a move, but now i say bring it on.
marc
i hope your son's hand is doing ok
I also think we need to remember that this theology and the confessions were forged at a differnet time in history. It was a time, as I understand it, to define oneself apart from others. We stand at a different time in history today and I think we need to determine how we can use our historical redemptive hermanuetic to identify the core truth and then rewrite (or reconstruct) it to address the new issues of the 21st century. I know that people find this scary...but it may be less scary than the challenges we face going forward with a theology and confession that is confrontational and puritantical.
imagine my surprise when i opened up my july banner today and it fell to page 36 where george vandervelde is quoted repeating the end of my comment above almost word for word.
it seems your blog is extremely topical, perhaps it should continue to be so? ;-)
marc
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home