My Facebook feed was recently lit up with the news of the conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy of Hank Hanegraaf, known best as the "Bible Answer Man." Such a defection evoked one blogger to say that Hanegraaf had "left the faith." Is that the case? Did Hank Hanegraaf really leave the Christian faith? Or have Evangelicals, particularly American Evangelicals, defined the gates of the Kingdom even more narrowly than God Himself has?
I have lately struggled with defining the boundaries of Christianity. The Bible makes it clear that practice and doctrine are both important when it comes to recognizing who is truly within the realms of orthodoxy, but how much must one believe to be considered a Christian brother? Are we going to condemn millions of sincere Christians who have been under the tutelage of poor teachers? I have difficulty with such a broad condemnation, and yet, ignorance is certainly an obstacle to true faith.
I was raised with a pretty simplistic understanding of who was Christian and who was not. Cultists (JW, Mormons, etc.) are not Christians. Roman Catholics and anyone like Roman Catholics are not Christians (let's ignore that people think Presbyterians are like Roman Catholics). Most Orthodox groups are not Christians. Charismatic/Pentecostals are Christians, but barely. Seventh Day Adventists occupy some sort of middle ground. While I fully appreciate my heritage and the emphasis it placed on the importance of doctrine, I find myself becoming more ecumenical as I get older. While I would like to shun as many hypocrites as possible, I want to include as many theological expressions of the faith as possible. Practice, though impossible to divorce from doctrine, is more indicative of the heart than doctrine. Doctrine is absolutely vital, but how much truth must you have? I certainly do not have all truth. What if I'm only 50% correct? 25%? Where do we draw the line? Due to the impossibility of defining this, I prefer to proceed on a basis of inclusion rather than exclusion.
There are two reasons I have come to be more ecumenical. Firstly, much of this change has come from meeting and interacting with people I once believed were outside the faith, particularly Catholics (Roman and otherwise). Two particular Catholics I met are more devout and love Jesus more than most Evangelicals I know. They have faith in Christ and serve Him as their Lord. If that is not enough to call them brother, I don't know what else is.
Secondly, I started reading Church history. The thing about Reformed people (such as I am) is that they celebrate the history of the Reformation to the point that they sometimes ignore and oversimplify Church history up to that point. The history of the Church looks something like this: Apostolic/Early Church, Catholics (not Christians!), Reformation, Us. That's pretty much the sum of it. When you really begin to read Church history, even the modest amount that I have read, you begin to recognize and connect with the diversity of Christian beliefs that have existed over the last 2000 years. Some groups strayed too far, and we must maintain lines of distinction, but I believe those lines have been drawn too narrowly at times, especially by American Evangelicals of the 19th-21st centuries. This is largely because we are historically illiterate. We think the Apostles and other church fathers were just like us. We view history anachronistically, interpolating our debates and categories where they simply did not exist. When you actually read what the fathers of the Church wrote, you begin to see that our modern theological landscape is not all that has even been on the horizon. You realize that maybe your particular persuasion doesn't have all the truth! As I read Church history, I find myself connecting on a spiritual level with Christians, dead and alive, whose theology I can't fully espouse.
The truth is that every denomination has truth and hypocrisy. Some groups, such as the Mormons, are unorthodox. They do not worship our God. They do not share our salvation. Could there be true Christians ignorantly trapped in the midst? Perhaps, but the are the exceptions. We must treat the sect as what they are, nonchristian. We should assume that Mormons are not Christians. There are many groups, however, that rightfully claim the name of Christ, and each of those groups is made up of both devout and nominal Christians. Many Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are truly saved, and many are not, the same as Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. There are always tares among the wheat.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Reformation wasn't important, but it doesn't define Christianity. We cannot say that anyone not descended spiritually from the Reformers can make no claim to being Christian. How do we define the boundaries of Christianity? I know of no other way than with the historical creeds. Some people want to have no creed but the Bible, but that is always going to be a subjective standard (man's interpretation, not the Bible itself). The Nicene and Apostles Creeds have demarcated Christianity for centuries. I can suggest no other way. These creeds, notably, do not define precisely the way in which Christ procured out redemption. You most know the true God in order to be saved, but do you need to understand salvation to be saved? I don't believe you do.
So, no, Hank Hanegraaf did not leave the faith. I still call him a brother in Christ.
I have lately struggled with defining the boundaries of Christianity. The Bible makes it clear that practice and doctrine are both important when it comes to recognizing who is truly within the realms of orthodoxy, but how much must one believe to be considered a Christian brother? Are we going to condemn millions of sincere Christians who have been under the tutelage of poor teachers? I have difficulty with such a broad condemnation, and yet, ignorance is certainly an obstacle to true faith.
I was raised with a pretty simplistic understanding of who was Christian and who was not. Cultists (JW, Mormons, etc.) are not Christians. Roman Catholics and anyone like Roman Catholics are not Christians (let's ignore that people think Presbyterians are like Roman Catholics). Most Orthodox groups are not Christians. Charismatic/Pentecostals are Christians, but barely. Seventh Day Adventists occupy some sort of middle ground. While I fully appreciate my heritage and the emphasis it placed on the importance of doctrine, I find myself becoming more ecumenical as I get older. While I would like to shun as many hypocrites as possible, I want to include as many theological expressions of the faith as possible. Practice, though impossible to divorce from doctrine, is more indicative of the heart than doctrine. Doctrine is absolutely vital, but how much truth must you have? I certainly do not have all truth. What if I'm only 50% correct? 25%? Where do we draw the line? Due to the impossibility of defining this, I prefer to proceed on a basis of inclusion rather than exclusion.
There are two reasons I have come to be more ecumenical. Firstly, much of this change has come from meeting and interacting with people I once believed were outside the faith, particularly Catholics (Roman and otherwise). Two particular Catholics I met are more devout and love Jesus more than most Evangelicals I know. They have faith in Christ and serve Him as their Lord. If that is not enough to call them brother, I don't know what else is.
Secondly, I started reading Church history. The thing about Reformed people (such as I am) is that they celebrate the history of the Reformation to the point that they sometimes ignore and oversimplify Church history up to that point. The history of the Church looks something like this: Apostolic/Early Church, Catholics (not Christians!), Reformation, Us. That's pretty much the sum of it. When you really begin to read Church history, even the modest amount that I have read, you begin to recognize and connect with the diversity of Christian beliefs that have existed over the last 2000 years. Some groups strayed too far, and we must maintain lines of distinction, but I believe those lines have been drawn too narrowly at times, especially by American Evangelicals of the 19th-21st centuries. This is largely because we are historically illiterate. We think the Apostles and other church fathers were just like us. We view history anachronistically, interpolating our debates and categories where they simply did not exist. When you actually read what the fathers of the Church wrote, you begin to see that our modern theological landscape is not all that has even been on the horizon. You realize that maybe your particular persuasion doesn't have all the truth! As I read Church history, I find myself connecting on a spiritual level with Christians, dead and alive, whose theology I can't fully espouse.
The truth is that every denomination has truth and hypocrisy. Some groups, such as the Mormons, are unorthodox. They do not worship our God. They do not share our salvation. Could there be true Christians ignorantly trapped in the midst? Perhaps, but the are the exceptions. We must treat the sect as what they are, nonchristian. We should assume that Mormons are not Christians. There are many groups, however, that rightfully claim the name of Christ, and each of those groups is made up of both devout and nominal Christians. Many Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are truly saved, and many are not, the same as Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. There are always tares among the wheat.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Reformation wasn't important, but it doesn't define Christianity. We cannot say that anyone not descended spiritually from the Reformers can make no claim to being Christian. How do we define the boundaries of Christianity? I know of no other way than with the historical creeds. Some people want to have no creed but the Bible, but that is always going to be a subjective standard (man's interpretation, not the Bible itself). The Nicene and Apostles Creeds have demarcated Christianity for centuries. I can suggest no other way. These creeds, notably, do not define precisely the way in which Christ procured out redemption. You most know the true God in order to be saved, but do you need to understand salvation to be saved? I don't believe you do.
So, no, Hank Hanegraaf did not leave the faith. I still call him a brother in Christ.
Comments
Post a Comment