In search of kindred
spirits
Adventures in
Evangelical Civility: A Life Long Quest for Common Ground
Author: Richard J.
Mouw
Publisher:
BrazosPress
Pages: 241
Watching Anne of
Green Gables for the first time as an adult I was immediately
captivated by the idea of the “kindred spirit.” “A kindred
spirit in the Anne of Green Gables series is someone who
understands Anne Shirley very well, well enough to know what she is
thinking” (Anne Green Gables wiki). Surely, Richard Mouw, the
author of Adventures in Evangelical Civility, delights in
finding kindred spirits in his lifelong quest for common ground.
Even though my
background is Charismatic and the author’s Reformed theology, in
more ways than one I have found a kindred spirit. In fact, I am more
in agreement with Reformation teaching than with the excesses of the
Charismatic movement.
But what drew me to
this book and makes me feel like a kindred spirit is the idea of an
evangelical civility. It should be obvious that incivility has become
rampant in our society. I don’t like how we talk to each other.
Those of us who are Christians have an obligation to defend the
gospel “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15 ESV). This
manner should inform all our discourse. A related idea provides an
important reminder: “Remember, if you are not very kind, you are
not very spiritual” (An old Scotch preacher).
It’s ironic and
tragic that we can speak the truth in the wrong spirit. I know how
it feels to be on both the giving and receiving ends. It not only
generates more heat the light, it can be devastating in terms of
relationships. In John 13 readers see that Christ’s disciples were
to be known for their love of each other. Unfortunately, Christians
today in the US are often known for what they stand against it.
My hope in reading
this volume was to learn more about engaging others whose views
differ from my own. I may have been slightly disappointed by my
expectations. This is not a “how to” book. It’s more of a
memoir from Mouw, now 75, of his search for human commonness.
At times, it became
a little too technical for me, as when he discusses all that is meant
by the image of God. It reminds me of just how complex theology can
be. It’s not that the academic discussion is not important. Ideas
have consequences. I may have been hoping for something more
application-oriented, but I did find more of it towards the end.
Plus, Mouw is showing not telling. He uses many personal
illustrations and references the books and people that have been an
influence. If you are a reader, you might appreciate knowing the
titles that can be sources for further study.
In particular, I
like the point that Mouw makes in relation to a critique from John
MacArthur Jr. Mouw was one of the signers of two documents issued by
the group, Evangelicals and Catholics Together. The 1997 statement,
“The Gift of Salvation,” dealt with the doctrine of justification
by faith. “MacArthur took the evangelical participants to be saying
‘that wile they believe that the doctrine of justification as
articulated by the Reformers is true, they are not willing to say
that people must believe it in order to be saved. In other words,
they believe that people are saved who do not believe the Biblical
doctrine of justification’” (197).
Mouw’s response:
“That is precisely what I believe.” He goes on to clarify, “I
would be surprised if MacArthur would dissent, if by ‘believing’
the doctrine we mean being able to give a clear articulation of it,
then certainly the vast majority of the saved fall short.” This
makes the point that people can have a genuine experience of
salvation without being able to precisely explain it. To take it
further, I don’t think incorrect views on the finer points of
doctrine is going to negate someone’s destiny. If someone puts
their trust in Christ, who can condemn them if their view on a
non-essential is faulty in some way. Doesn’t it come down to this?
“Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God
does not have life” (1 John 5:12 ESV).
This is not to say
that wrong beliefs don’t matter. Of course, we all want to be
right, and adhering to sound teaching is essential, but can anyone
claim 100% doctrinal purity, not just in theory but also in practice.
If all my beliefs and practice have to line up perfectly with
Scripture, I will never make it. That’s why I need God’s grace
and Christ within by His Spirit.
Recently, I have
personally wrestled with a theological perspective that goes to
extremes. The way it's presented by some, a person must accept a
particular set of verses and their interpretation of it. It’s
almost like you have to sign off or voice a declaration indicating
your belief in it. Ironically, a person could give mental assent, but
in reality not be transformed by it. In other words, you could agree
with the rightness of a teaching but not be regenerated by the Spirit
of God. And yet, some other simple soul could in childlike faith
receive Christ and experience new life. They may never be able to
explain justification by faith, but they can tell you what Jesus has
done for them.
Though I respect
John MacArthur, I appreciate Mouw making the point that one can
experience salvation without being able to precisely explain it.
I also applaud
Mouw’s humility and honesty. He expresses his concern that his
journey could have unintended consequences. Recognizing that we live
in a time of biblical illiteracy, he wonders if he strikes the right
balance between conviction and civility. I agree with his conclusion
“that civility is not something that stands over against biblically
based convictions in a kind of ‘tension’ relationship” (211).
Mouw holds firmly to
biblical convictions. I admire the ways in which he is able to engage
without compromise. I don’t feel like he downplays the need for
strong beliefs. Honestly, I hope that more people will follow his
example, believing that not only can we find common ground but we can
also learn from those who have different views. Respectful dialogue
is not something that should be shunned by Christians.
No comments:
Post a Comment