"Peripheral"
Just a quick note for those who aren't quite up on the Dutch Reformed subculture. This post, and likely the next one, is a response to an article in The Banner (thebanner.org) -- this one is in response to an article by Jacob D. Eppinga, "Peripheral." The Banner is the monthly publication of the Christian Reformed Church, which is the denomination I grew up in. It's somewhat similar to the Presbyterian denominations, since they both find their spiritual roots in the writings of John Calvin. It's just that the Presbyterians are Scottish, and we're Dutch.
In this article, Eppinga describes paper he wrote once about the debate between supralapsarianism (the view that God planned our salvation before the fall) and infralapsarianism (the view that God planned our salvation after the fall). This was quite a heated topic back in the day, and it's Eppinga's jumping off point for a discussion of what he calls the 'peripherals' -- those bits of the faith that are "not central." His conclusion is that "we must, where possible, avoid passing harsh judgments against other people." Debates about the periphery are impossible to avoid, he writes, if only because there's not always agreement about what is, in fact, peripheral. But we need to remember that, regardless of what our disagreements might be, there is certainly a center we can all agree on.
Perhaps this is just a difference of generation, but I'm not sure that intolerance regarding peripheral issues is really that large of a problem. I've had arguments about infra- vs. supralapsarianism, about Calvinism vs. Arminianism, even about Protestantism vs. Catholicism. (Still haven't had the sprinkled vs. dipped debate yet, though). But I've never gotten the impression that my opposition thought of me as less of a Christian because of it. But I've known a lot of people my age inside the church who simply don't care about these sorts of issues, and I think that can be dangerous. These issues may be peripheral, but that doesn't mean that they're not important. A lack of concern about these issues can indicate a lack of concern with the truth, and that is obviously a bad thing. For the past few centuries, people have been accusing Christians of believing in the gospel merely because it makes us feel good, not because it's true. So a lack of concern about the truth within the church serves to bolster these claims. I don't think we should burn people at the stake because they sing hymns in addition to psalms, but we should probably think about the issue to the extent the gifts God has given us. As C. S. Lewis wrote, "God is no fonder of intellectual laziness than he is of any other sort of laziness."
In this article, Eppinga describes paper he wrote once about the debate between supralapsarianism (the view that God planned our salvation before the fall) and infralapsarianism (the view that God planned our salvation after the fall). This was quite a heated topic back in the day, and it's Eppinga's jumping off point for a discussion of what he calls the 'peripherals' -- those bits of the faith that are "not central." His conclusion is that "we must, where possible, avoid passing harsh judgments against other people." Debates about the periphery are impossible to avoid, he writes, if only because there's not always agreement about what is, in fact, peripheral. But we need to remember that, regardless of what our disagreements might be, there is certainly a center we can all agree on.
Perhaps this is just a difference of generation, but I'm not sure that intolerance regarding peripheral issues is really that large of a problem. I've had arguments about infra- vs. supralapsarianism, about Calvinism vs. Arminianism, even about Protestantism vs. Catholicism. (Still haven't had the sprinkled vs. dipped debate yet, though). But I've never gotten the impression that my opposition thought of me as less of a Christian because of it. But I've known a lot of people my age inside the church who simply don't care about these sorts of issues, and I think that can be dangerous. These issues may be peripheral, but that doesn't mean that they're not important. A lack of concern about these issues can indicate a lack of concern with the truth, and that is obviously a bad thing. For the past few centuries, people have been accusing Christians of believing in the gospel merely because it makes us feel good, not because it's true. So a lack of concern about the truth within the church serves to bolster these claims. I don't think we should burn people at the stake because they sing hymns in addition to psalms, but we should probably think about the issue to the extent the gifts God has given us. As C. S. Lewis wrote, "God is no fonder of intellectual laziness than he is of any other sort of laziness."
posted by Mad Jurist at 9:30 PM
2 Comments:
I think you argue against yourself when you say "these issues may be peripheral, but that doesn't mean they are not important." My Oxford Desk Dictionary defines peripheral as meaning "of minor importance." So it is not a matter of the truth as opposed to falsehoods, but a matter of descerning what issues we are going to spend time disscussing. Therefore, disscussing what God requires of us and what must we do to be saved has far greater merit than spending time on the lapsarian question which is peripheral and of minor importance.
Hi, I just found you clicking through, and since you write about religion so impressively, I'm adding you to things I read. And then I'm going to take issue with what you say.
"But I've never gotten the impression that my opposition thought of me as less of a Christian because of it."
My father is the superintendent of a CRC school, which one of the very few Protestant Christian schools in the area. Now, to work at the school, you have to be a church-going member of a Reformed church. Fine. But to attend the school, children have to be vouched for by the church, and must be baptized. This, of course, excluded any child from a church that only performs adult baptisms. Of course, I have no legal problem with this—it's a private institution. But I do have a theological problem with it, namely the intimation that these kids aren't "really" Christians. To me, the debate about baptism is a peripheral (so long as you DO it, I don't care when.) and there's very much exclusion based upon it.
I do, on the other hand, love to debate about the peripherals (Four hour discussions of transubstatiation vs. consubstatiation? Bring it ON!), and agree with you that people of a younger generation tend to shy away from such debates. Although, in some cases, I know it's becuase they feel such debates have caused such harm in the past that they are reluctant to go there.
Post a Comment
<< Home