Build a Straw Man, Knock Him Down
As recently alluded to, particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, Reformed Theology has been given the “straw-man” treatment. In other words, you build up a man of straw, which of course is easily knocked down. In other words, you paint a picture of your opponent’s position and then you “knock it down.” The only problem is that, too often, what’s knocked down is not truly your opponent’s position at all.
We all do this to varying degrees. For example, when it is argued that we ought not to adhere to Dispensationalism because they teach that there is more than one way to heaven. Now, I do think that Dispensationalism is wrong, but I also recognize that though there may have been implications of this at one time in the system, no one now holds anything close to that. The most popular SBC straw-man to knock down of late seems to be that Reformed churches don’t evangelize because they have fewer baptisms (PDF file).
I had this same experience when a friend pointed me to a blog entry entitled Religion: Can I Get It? In the piece, Joe Phillips openly calls the Reformed tradition a cult and does so, because he believes that we require “secret knowledge” in order to be saved. If you don’t know the right doctrine, then you’re not elect.
The problem is often that a kernel of truth is taken from an argument and then exaggerated, blown-up and generally twisted. For example, does traditional Dispensational theology see a clear distinction between national Israel and the Church? Yes, but that does not mean they are proposing separate means of salvation. Do Reformed churches often have fewer baptisms? Yes, but is that because we don’t evangelize or because of other reasons all together (Here among my own ramblings, the topic of evangelism seems to reappear quite frequently)? And lastly, do Reformed churches emphasize theology and doctrine? Absolutely, but does this mean that if you don’t have the exact right knowledge then you’re damned? Certainly not; unless of course you simply mean that one must possess enough knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Savior (John 14:6) to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:8-10).
The application here is obvious: if we’re going to interact with position other than our own (which I hope that we will), it must be in love. Our goal must not be simply to be right, but that of iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17), driving one another deeper into the Word (Acts 17:11), and speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We at least owe it to the other position to represent it accurately. This means that we will have to do some research, some thinking, and we will have to show some respect. Yes, as Rhett has pointed out, I can be passionate, but I pray that even in my passion, I accurately represent those with whom I disagree and that the Word is the final judge between us.
Read the original post Religion: Can I Get it? at Ashemha.
Download Say What You Mean by Maktub.
Download Say What You Mean by Neville Staples.
Thanks for your kindness towards me as you referenced my blog entry. I should point out that I do not think Reformation Theology is a cult. I have changed the emphasis of a sentence in my blog to make it more noticable. It stated “This is not the real message of reformers.”
This was a blog in response to a “reformer’s interview.” That person most definitely had a problem with their knowledge - not Godly Wisdom and Knowledge, but self supporting knowledge.
Joe;
Please know that whoever that person was certainly does not accurately portray Reformed Doctrine. I admit that we often don’t communicate our positons well, and apparently this person is guilty as well.
I look forward to much dialogue and service of our Lord with you!
By the way, thank you for your kind words towards Paul Duncan! I have yet to hear him preach but I consider him a brother in the Lord and have been thoroughly impressed with his heart!