Sunday, 9 June 2013


Academic Blind Spots
What is a blind spot in the context of an academic and theological discussion? According to the Webster’s dictionary, it is a prejudice, or an area of ignorance that one has but is often unaware of. What is prejudice? Again, according to Webster’s; prejudice is a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known, it is a preconceived idea. Or it is a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it, it is an unreasonable bias. Prejudice is therefore nonfactual. Prejudice is powerful and destructive when it is mingled with pride and passion. Our Lord Jesus Christ was, in a way, sent to the cross by the passionate prejudice of the Jews. We could say that much of the doctrinal disputes among Christians in church history were clashes of prejudices. Prejudice is not a thing of the past and it can be found in our thinking today. Indeed, there are plenty of blind spots in our thinking. All of us are guilty of holding on to one form of prejudice or another in our reasoning. The following are two examples of how prejudice operates. Be careful, they are dangerous when they are mixed with emotion!

The 1689 Baptist Confession of faith vs. the Bible
Since the Reformed Baptist church was established in Malaysia, founding members were taught that the Bible is the authority over our belief and practice, and at the same time they were also told to subscribe to the Confession as the authority over their faith and practice. Ever since, this two prong formula has become the trade mark conviction of the Reformed Baptist in Malaysia. This is a bit confusing. Which authority should the believers follow, the Bible or the Confession?
Common sense tells us that it is disastrous for any nation or organization to have two equal powers to be the authority. There will be war when this happen. To avoid this, the authority has to be unified and the role of the other power must be clearly defined and must submit to the unified authority. Take our country for instance, under the constitution, the King is given the constitutional authority and he is the symbol of national unity. The Prime Minister is given the executive power to lead the nation with the help of the Cabinet and the Parliament. The Police are authorized to maintain peace and order and the Defense Units are to protect the nation. The Court is authorized to ensure the constitutional right of every citizen in the nation is protected. In theory and practice, these various powers have to submit to the constitutional authority of the King.
Now, we have unknowingly claimed both the Bible and the Confession as our authorities. Presuming we have done the right thing but in actual fact we made a mistake by making such a claim. On one hand we uphold the Bible and at the same time we spit at the Bible by holding up high the Confession. How are we to persuade others to believe in the Bible when we ourselves do not believe in it? How can we condemn others for not respecting the Bible when we ourselves have no respect for the Bible? It is like the pot calling the kettle black. Or it is, according to a Chinese saying, like the fifty steps ran away soldiers laughing at the hundred steps ran away soldiers. The Bible and the Confession are not the same.  For the Bible is “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim.3.16).  The Confession cannot command similar respect simply because it is a piece of human doctrine.  Worse of all, in some areas, its content does not reflect the teaching of the Bible accurately.
What must we do now? We have no other alternative except to recognize and accept the Bible as the only authority over our faith and practice. We must assign the Confession to another place. It will be better if we place it together with all other good Christian doctrines.  We must commit to a careful exegetical study of the Bible and develop a better understanding of the Bible. Then we must reexamine the Confession so to put it right with Bible and to make it relevant for today. The confession was the common consensus of the old and we need to produce a consensus for ourselves today. Only then we can move on, not blindly, but with a clear vision.

The Law vs. the gospel[i]
We often hear statements like “we must preach the Law first to impress upon the hearts of the sinners to fear God and His judgment, then we preach the gospel to bring them to Christ Jesus to seek salvation”, or “we must persuade sinners to believe in Christ Jesus and then teach them to obey the Law”, ringing from the Reformed circle and conservative believers. These statements remind us more of the passionate push for the Law by the Pharisees than the teaching of the gospel. These nonfactual statements puzzle normal thinking mind and raise more questions: What is wrong with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Why are we so hostile towards the gospel? Why do we have to pitch the Law against the gospel?
There are two problems with these hostile statements. Firstly, it gives a wrong impression that the gospel is impotent and by itself it cannot convince the sinners to repent from their sins and believe in the Lord Christ Jesus. Whereas Paul, the apostle, told us that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the power of for salvation for those who believe. He also said that the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel without the help of the Law (Rom.1.16, 3.21). Secondly, it sends out a wrong message that the gospel is merely about comforting the sinners and therefore it has nothing by itself to demand allegiance from the sinners. The Bible, on the contrarily, tells us that the Lord demands every saved sinner to obey His gospel in his life (Rom.6.17, 10.16, Gal.3.1, 2 The.1.8, 3.14). We must bear in mind that we are called to begin with gospel and end with gospel. There is no need for anybody to change lane in the journey. We must also remember that we are called to propagate the gospel everywhere we go, and not to proclaim a confused message like the message that was proclaimed by the Jewish Christians (Acts 15).

Conclusion
Christian sound thinking is factual, while prejudice, preconceived idea and unreasonable bias are not, and they are bad for sound thinking and we must eliminate them from our study. When we remove prejudice from our thinking we will be able to see clearly and in a better position to return the Bible and the gospel of Lord Jesus Christ to the believers.


[i] See my article “The glorious gospel” for detail exegetical observation on the subject.

No comments:

Post a Comment